Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Inspectors (Visits and Reports)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the (a) shortest, (b) longest and (c) average period of time between the end of Her Majesty's inspectors visits to a school or group of schools and the publication of their report.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): Her Majesty's inspectors report orally at the end of their inspections to the head and, usually, to the governors shortly afterwards. Their written reports are now normally published between one and two terms after the inspection.

Mr. Fisher: Is the Secretary of State aware that some reports have not been published for as long as two years after the initial visit? Does he agree that that is far too long? Is the delay due to slowness in drafting, slow approval by the Department, or slow printing? What steps will the Secretary of State take to change the situation? Does he agree that if schools implement a report's recommendations quickly they can find themselves in the impossible position, when the report comes, out of being criticised for faults which they have already put right?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, for every reason, the sooner the report is published the better. The long delays were due to teething troubles at the beginning of the publication process. The time taken generally involves the gathering together to complete their report of the inspectors, who are quickly engaged on other inspections. There is no particular problem about inspecting or printing now, and the average time taken is about six months.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend taking any steps to speed up the process, because most people believe that the time between the inspection and the publication of the report is too long?

Sir Keith Joseph: As I tried to explain, the process has been remarkably speeded up and now takes on average only about six months. Taking into account the business of the inspectors who have to gather together to agree their report while doing other inspections, I think that the time taken is quite commendable.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We are delighted that the reports are being published, but we press the Government

to try to speed up the time taken. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a little demoralising for a school and its governors when, having received a verbal report and having started to put things right, out comes a report which implies that the school is still failing to meet the standards that everyone would like it to meet?

Sir Keith Joseph: I entirely agree, but I am not sure whether it will be practical to make the time much shorter than the present average.

Mr. Pawsey: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what he believes to be the principal benefits of publishing reports? What lessons does he think have been learnt by the Department from their publication?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is not so much that the Department has learnt, because Ministers have always read the reports, but that the schools concerned have benefited. The purpose is to encourage the local education authorities, which are taking the reports seriously, not only to apply the lessons learnt in the school inspected, but to generalise from that in relation to all the schools in an area. I hope that more of them are taking this seriously.

School Meals

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has had any recent proposals from education authorities for changes in the school meals service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): No, Sir.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that when the Conservative Government came to office in 1979 more than two thirds of schoolchildren took school meals, but that now, despite family impoverishment due to Government policies, the massive increase in the price of school meals and the abandonment of the service in some areas, under 50 per cent. of schoolchildren take school meals?

Mr. Dunn: I cannot confirm that. Local authorities have a right under the law to make changes in the provision of school meals, the only stipulation being that they must provide meals for children whose families receive supplementary benefit or family income supplement.

Mrs. Rumbold: Does my hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the fact that the education service was not set up to provide meals for children, the experiments carried out by some local authorities in putting the school meals service out to the private sector have been highly successful, particularly the scheme undertaken by my own borough of Merton?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In the search for essential savings, privatisation is one option that can be considered. Nevertheless, I have an old-fashioned belief that responsibility for meals rests with parents.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am surprised that the Minister is unaware of what his Tory friends on Hertfordshire county council have been up to. Does he realise that in an attempt to save less than one third of 1 per cent. of its total budget that Tory county council proposed to cut out school meals altogether except for the very poorest children? Is he further aware that due to widespread protests throughout the county the council is now thinking again and trying to


save £1 million by asking dinner ladies to take a reduction in their low wages? Does he agree that that is a darned scandal?

Mr. Dunn: rose——

Mrs. Short: That is absolutely true, as the Secretary of State well knows.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has finished her question, but I have not yet heard the Minister's answer.

Mr. Dunn: What a local education authority decides to do about school meals is not a matter for the Secretary of State, except with regard to the authority's obligations to families in receipt of benefit. In other respects the authority does not have to make proposals to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend accept the description "extremely worrying" as applying to the evidence that the diet of many children taking school meals is leading to an unacceptably high incidence of heart disease due to the consumption of animal fats? In view of what the Department has done so far, will he now take an active rather than a passive role in advising parents of the dangers that their children face?

Mr. Dunn: When the Department introduced guidelines in the past, much food was wasted, which was clearly of nutritional benefit to no one. The Department of Health and Social Security has undertaken the school children's dietary survey and I understand that the results will be available later this year. We are aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend draws attention.

Mr. Radice: Does the Minister believe that authorities such as Birmingham and Hertfordshire should help to finance their schools by cutting the pay of low-paid dinner ladies by between 5 and 25 per cent?

Mr. Dunn: It remains my view and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that authorities are entirely right to seek to provide non-teaching, non-educational services through private contractors if they believe that the resulting service will be better and more cost effective.

Religious Education

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he intends to take further to encourage religious education in schools.

Mr. Dunn: Primary responsibility for the provision of religious education rests with local education authorities and with the schools themselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will continue to emphasise the importance that we attach to this matter.

Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind answer. Will he give more encouragement and emphasis to the need for local education authorities and schools to give religious instruction very definitely and accurately? Is he aware that many parents in my constituency are greatly concerned that religious education in many multi-denominational schools is not being provided in accordance with the Education Act 1944?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is quite right. The 1944 Act requires religious instruction to take place in schools and governors have a responsibility to inquire whether it

is taking place and in what form. If they feel that the headmaster and the staff are not carrying out the requirements of the Act they have the right to make representations to the Department.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on his conversion to supporting peace studies in schools, especially such subversive dissertations on peace as the sermon on the mount? May I also welcome the Minister's own conversion to those peace studies which are traditionally enshrined in our legislation?

Mr. Dunn: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in a position to give Conservative Members lectures in divinity and theology.

Mr. Greenway: As we live in an age of video nasties and all sorts of other unpleasant pressures upon young people, is it not a scandal that we are short of at least 1,000 teachers of religious education and that 60 per cent. of the children in our schools are not taught by RE specialists? Can my hon. Friend do something about that?

Mr. Dunn: I cannot fail to take note of that robust invitation. The allocation of places for initial teacher training in 1983–85 was intended to secure an adequate supply of teachers of religious education within the total number of teachers being trained. That involved an increase in the proportion of entry places devoted to religious education. I hope that that reply goes some way towards answering my hon. Friend's point.

Further Education Colleges

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the effect on further education colleges of the cut in mode B youth training scheme provision.

Sir Keith Joseph: In 1983–84 many approved places for mode B schemes were not filled. The reduction in provision is intended to lead to a closer match between supply and demand, giving colleges a sounder basis for planning.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister not aware that the places were not filled because industry is running at half pace? Five years ago, North Nottinghamshire technical college in my constituency turned out 80 skilled apprentices. The figure has now fallen to 30. Under these proposals, no skilled apprentices will be turned out. Instead, the Manpower Services Commission will turn out a handful of lads for bucket and ladder jobs. In such a situation, how will we produce the skills and technology that are needed to put the country back on its feet?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the technologies of the industries that he has in mind have changed dramatically and that in recent years they have gone through a grisly period as they have tried to recover their competitiveness. As a result, the numbers of apprenticeships have been very much reduced. However, I am glad to say that the Government, the employers and the education service are dramatically increasing the number of places in the new technologies, where there is a huge demand.

Mr. Lyell: A great many of the places provided last year at a wasted cost of up to £70 million were used to train


no one. We must get the right match, so that the many good B1 schemes are taken up by young people and the others are abandoned, with the money being used more wisely elsewhere.

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. A more effective deployment of the money is the motive underlying my answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).

Mr. Sheerman: Some of the best mode B1 and B2 schemes are being cut, with no evaluation of how good they are. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people believe that there is no consultation between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment before the savage cuts which affect the future of our further education colleges and our young people are made?

Sir Keith Joseph: Those are wild allegations. The reduction in the number of mode B places simply reflects the fact that there was not a demand for all the places provided last year.

Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that last year there were 95,000 mode B1 places available, that the uptake was 55,000, and that the Government have cut back the number of places to 75,000?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend's figures are more or less the same as mine, except that he is bringing together the mode B1 and mode B2 figures. My figures are slightly different, but show a similar lack of demand for the places that were available.

Education Expenditure

Mr. Jack Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has had from local authorities regarding the effect of reductions in education expenditure.

Mr. Dunn: Since 1978–79 expenditure on education and science as a whole has increased by 1 per cent. in cost terms despite a fall of 12 per cent. in the school population. My right hon. Friend has discussed spending on education with the local authority associations and with individual authorities on a number of occasions in recent months.

Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister comment on a request from Northumberland county council, which was refused, that the Secretary of State, or any of his Ministers, should meet two representatives of the 16 high schools in that county, and on the response of the education committee of the Association of County Councils to the "Training for Jobs" White Paper presented to the House?

Mr. Dunn: The Department receives many requests for meetings and interviews with Ministers. We do our best at all times to accede to those requests, but we cannot meet everyone during a very short time.

Mr. Haselhurst: Has my hon. Friend received representations from local education authorities about ways in which the administration of education could be streamlined in their areas?

Mr. Dunn: I have not, but we should be pleased to have such representations.

Mr. Boyes: Is it not a fact that our most precious asset is our youth? As we are entering a rapidly changing and

highly technological society, should not more money be spent on education? Is not the threat of rate-capping and cuts in education a disgrace?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of believing his own speeches. We are determined to improve and enhance the education service in all parts of the country. The responsibility for such provision rests with local education authorities, which must decide how they provide education in their communities.

Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that although many factors, including finance, affect the course of education, by far the most important factor is the ability of a teacher in front of a class to interest pupils and impart information to them? If we are concerned about education, should not our scrutiny be directed towards that?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I know that he and the House will welcome our initiatives in our White Paper on teacher quality. We must motivate those teachers who do not, for some reason, reach the standards that we require of them.

Development Council for Continuing Education

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received for the establishment of a development council for continuing education.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): About 70 letters have been received in the Department since 1 January 1983, and I have discussed the issue with representatives of the local authority associations and the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education. Although we do not intend to set up a council of the sort proposed by ACACE, my right hon. Friend has agreed to grant-aid the development unit being established by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.

Mr. Dormand: That is an extremely unsatisfactory answer. Is the Minister aware that since the Government abolished the advisory council there has been a yawning gap in this area? Does he realise that without such an organisation continuing education will inevitably suffer? Is the Government's attitude to such a council based on principle, or on financial considerations?

Mr. Brooke: ACACE wanted a large council, with a substantial annual budget. We doubt the wisdom of channelling all adult education development funds through a single agency, bearing in mind the existence of other relevant bodies such as the further education unit and the adult literacy and basic skills unit. The arrangement that we have in mind provides the flexibility that is needed. The unit provides a central focus, but there is a choice of agencies to carry out specific projects.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that adult and continuing education has a great role to play in retraining for work and in providing self-dignity to the old and unemployed? Will he make it a priority to give a higher profile to this important service?

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that the expenditure from my Department will increase by 14 per cent. next year and by 22 per cent. in the following year.

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Litherland: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking on teachers pay.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with teachers unions about pay; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Keith Joseph: Teachers pay is negotiated in the Burnham committees and direct discussions between the holder of my office and the teachers unions on matters falling within the purview of those committees would be inappropriate. I am represented on those committees, and in that way my views can be made known to the employers who make up the majority on the management panel of each committee.

Mr. Litherland: Does the Minister not agree that the 3 per cent. offered to teachers is an insult and that the employers, by their refusal to go to arbitration, are showing their stubbornness? Does he not agree also that this could lead to an explosion of teachers' salaries, as indicated by the Burnham report?

Sir Keith Joseph: No, absolutely no to all those questions. The hon. Gentleman has not realised that the climate has changed substantially since inflation has fallen. So far as I know, there is no exodus from the teaching profession because of pay. There is a large queue of what I am told are excellent candidates for the teaching profession, at current rates of pay.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister not aware that one of the reasons why there are others waiting to take teachers' jobs is the policy carried out by the Government of throwing groups of workers on to the dole so as to depress wages? Is the 3 per cent. that has been offered not a real wage cut in view of the fact that inflation is running at 5 per cent.? If the Tory party chairman can get a backhander of £100 per week for doing no more work, why can teachers not be paid properly? If the Government have £300 million to throw around in the Budget to the Duke of Westminster and his cronies as a result of changes in taxation allowances, does the Minister not realise that they should be able to find money for the teachers?

Sir Keith Joseph: Anyone who pays attention to the rubbish that the hon. Gentleman puts to the House is likely to be harmed. Only when the country becomes competitive again, which means that unit labour costs allow goods and services to be produced at prices that consumers here and abroad find acceptable, will we get full employment.

Mr. Madel: Will not a modest pay settlement this year improve job opportunities in the teaching profession and also ensure that the in-service training and retraining programmes will continue to have adequate funds?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with both the points that my hon. Friend makes. Indeed, if teachers were to succeed in getting more than the amount of money that is being put into the calculations for a pay increase the result would be that less money would be available for things like books and the maintenance of equipment, which we all think should be provided for the children.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State remember that some 10 years ago, when the Houghton commission reported that teachers' pay had been eroded so dreadfully

—by well over 25 per cent. —the so-called Houghton money gave the teachers a 30 per cent. increase to enable them to catch up? Does he realise — I wish that he would listen—that the erosion of teachers' pay has put them back to where they were? In other words, they have lost 30 per cent. over the last few years. Does he not think that the offer of 3 per cent. at a time of 5 per cent. inflation is a disgraceful offer to an orderly and well-behaved group of working people?

Sir Keith Joseph: On the contrary, I think that the Houghton dependence on comparability — part of the fashion of those days—was one of the principal causes of the lack of competitiveness and inflation that led to the unemployment of today.

Mr. Radice: Does the Secretary of State believe that the best way of motivating teachers—something which he thinks is very important—is by insisting that they take a cut in real pay?

Sir Keith Joseph: What the hon. Gentleman does not take on board is the fact that in an effective society pay will reflect supply and demand. The fact is that teachers are not leaving the profession in large numbers on pay grounds and that very good candidates are coming forward on the present pay conditions.

Open University

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will next meet the vice-chancellor of the Open University to discuss the expansion of programmes of continuing education.

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend has been invited by the vice-chancellor to visit the Open University and he will be replying shortly.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State use the opportunity of his visit to the Open University to consider some of the criminal damage that has been done to that institution in the last year? [Interruption.] I refer to damage done not by the students but by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, who had a golden opportunity to expand the Open University for continuing education and to develop courses for people who must change their careers in midstream and who must train and retrain if they are not to be unemployed. There has been a savage cut in the number of courses, teachers and students. Will the Secretary of State explain why, to add insult to injury, the Open University has been asked to borrow £1 million at criminally high rates of interest to expand its continuing education?

Mr. Brooke: As I said, my right hon. Friend has been invited to visit the university and will be replying shortly. I am sure that he will welcome listening to everything that the people at the Open University have to say to him.

Head Teachers

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has discussed with the Government's partners in the education service his suggestions about the alternative deployment of unsatisfactory head teachers; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Keith Joseph: It was the Government's partners to whom I first put these suggestions and I shall be sending


them tomorrow a consultative document on a probationary period for new head teachers. I also intend to consult them in the near future on my thinking on changing pension rules to allow head teachers to step down to less demanding posts.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we could achieve greater mobility among head teachers, and place many of them in the right posts, that might be less unsatisfactory? By that means we might achieve greater potential from what is largely a dedicated profession.

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, certainly. Head teachers deserve good treatment and I hope that the proposed change in the pension rules, if it is accepted, will help in that regard.

Mr. Freud: Will the Secretary of State look into the viability of fixed-term appointments for head teachers? Does he agree that that works well with heads of departments at universities? Is he aware that fixed-term appointments would also enable him to promote young teachers without being saddled with them for life?

Sir Keith Joseph: Fixed-term appointments, be they for head teachers or teachers, are within the power of local education authorities to grant, if they so decide. There are arguments in both directions. I do not think that any action is needed by me.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that head teachers are no different from anyone else in any other profession; in other words, that there are individuals who, through no fault of their own, will cease to be able to perform their duties satisfactorily and that there should be ways of removing them?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, indeed. Head teachers are the same as other people, although perhaps they are rather better when in their prime. If only there were a system of assessment for all teachers, including head teachers, the country, the pupils and the teachers would be much better off. That at present is nothing more than an item on the discussion agenda. However, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hardy: Everyone agrees that unsatisfactory head teachers should be eased out. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while an unsatisfactory head teacher can do a great deal of damage to the children in his school, unsatisfactory Ministers can effect a great deal of damage to a whole generation?

Sir Keith Joseph: On the evidence this afternoon, the Opposition are not showing that they have begun to grapple with the problems of government, but perhaps that is not surprising.

Mr. Lyell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of the head teacher is probably the single most important factor in determining the quality of the school? For that reason, will he accept, in view of the questions he has been asked this afternoon, that there is support on both sides of the House for fixed-term appointments for head teachers?

Sir Keith Joseph: I accept that the head teacher is the nearest thing we have to a magic wand in connection with schools, but it does not follow from that that we should try to judge whether a fixed-term contract for head teachers would be beneficial. That is for the local education authorities.

Students (Travel Arrangements)

Mr. Radice: asked the Secretary of Slate for Education and Science what representations he has received from college principals on the impact of his proposals to change the arrangements for student travel on students at London colleges.

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend has received two such representations, one from the vice-chancellor of the University of London and one from the provost of University College London.

Mr. Radice: Is the Minister aware that the new proposals on student travel grants will mean hardship for many students in London, Lancaster and elsewhere who have long distances to travel? Will he follow the example of his Scottish colleagues and abandon these proposals?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend has received representations from areas outside London to the effect that the proposed new arrangements would cause special difficulties. The additional help for London students about which the hon. Gentleman asked could be provided only at the expense of other students, which I do not believe would be justified.

Mr. Spearing: Does the permanent Under-Secretary agree that, in his letter to Mr. Hayden Williams the president of the University of London union, he admitted a degree of rough justice? Does the Minister further agree that the travel needs of Members of Parliament vary as greatly as those of students and that the imposition of the scheme would be not just rough justice, but injustice?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that rank. The present system of reimbursing individually travel claims in excess of the £50 element included in the main grant is administratively costly and unsatisfactory, as it involves local education authorities checking and paying numerous individual claims which they are not always well placed to verify. In addition, it represents an uncontrollable and effectively open-ended commitment to public expenditure.

Mr. Favell: Why should there be one rule for Scotland and another for England?

Mr. Brooke: That is a constitutional question to be answered by others than myself.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that the difficulties of checking expense claims should not stand in the way of continuing encouragement for students to travel from one part of the country to another? Will the Minister undertake to review the matter and bring it into line?

Mr. Brooke: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which has been brought up in the consultations that we are undertaking.

North East London Polytechnic

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the current and proposed staffing levels and student numbers at the North East London polytechnic.

Mr. Brooke: The number of full-time academic and research staff at the North East London polytechnic in 1982–83, the latest figures available in the Department, was 648. I understand that the polytechnic's estimate of


the comparable number in 1984–85 is 527. The full-time equivalent number of students on advanced courses, excluding overseas and other full-time students, in 1982–83 was 4,850. The national advisory body's plan for 1984–85, as endorsed by my right hon. Friend, provides for a full-time equivalent of 5,274.

Mr. Gould: Is the Minister aware that the only reason why substantial compulsory redundancies have been avoided is that the staff have co-operated on voluntary early retirement and that the three local authorities involved, including my own, have dug deep into their own resources, despite being victims of Government cuts, to make good the shortfall in Government financing? Does the Minister understand that the North-East London polytechnic, and other polytechnics, cannot continue to maintain high standards under the constant threat of redundancies and financial deprivation?

Mr. Brooke: The expenditure out turn at NELP for 1982–83 suggests that its unit cost was about 24 per cent. higher than the average for polytechnics. It was 29 per cent. above the average in 1981–82. Although there has been some improvement, there must be scope for substantially greater economy and efficiency.

Truancy

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last officially received truancy figures from Cambridgeshire county council.

Mr. Dunn: School attendance figures were last received from that authority in 1977, as part of a sample survey.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. When he formulates education policy for Cambridgeshire and the rest of the country, especially for under-achievers and under-motivated students, will he not be assisted by knowing how many were at school and, more important, why those not attending school stay away?

Mr. Dunn: The answer to the broad sense of the question is yes. We believe that our policies on the school curriculum are a means of combating truancy by ensuring that the pupils regard what is offered to them as relevant to their needs. There are, however, other means at our disposal.

Mr. Freud: If the school curriculum provided lessons not only for the academically able but for those who underachieve, would not truancy rates fall very considerably? Is not truancy the responsibility of the Minister, in that he introduced rate-capping and penalties on local education authorities that made it so hard to engage teachers to achieve those curricula?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Liberal party, which has never got it right yet. We intend to take a number of initiatives soon to focus the attention of the education welfare service more sharply on school attendance issues. The hon. Gentleman's other points do not relate to the question.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the police have discovered that there is an increasing link between truancy and juvenile crime, particularly

vandalism? Will he consider meeting his colleagues in the Home Office to see that the matter is taken seriously and to discuss what can be done about it?

Mr. Dunn: Like my hon. Friend, I believe that there is a link between truancy and juvenile crime. The causal connections are not firmly established. We have interdepartmental conversations and meetings with our colleagues in the Home Office. I assure my hon. Friend that that matter has been at the forefront of my attention.

Mr. Flannery: Has the Minister noticed that there is some ambiguity in the original question asked by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney)? The question does not refer to truancy in schools. I understand that Cambridgeshire county council keeps a tight ship—it cuts and cuts. The question could mean truancy in the Cambridgeshire county council and that some council members are missing.

Mr. Dunn: I do not think that I can find a suitable reply to that question. On the other hand, I shall say that I have every confidence that the Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire authority will do its level best at all times to provide the best service for the people and children in the area.

Overseas Students

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of overseas students currently undertaking postgraduate courses at United Kingdom universities and colleges of higher education; and what was the corresponding figure in April 1980.

Mr. Brooke: This information is not readily available for the United Kingdom. However, in 1983–84 the provisional estimated number of postgraduate students at universities in Great Britain who either paid fees at the overseas rate or were domiciled in other European Community countries was 16,300. The corresponding figure for the academic year 1979–80 was 17,500. Including public sector higher education in Great Britain, there were 18,900 such students in 1979–80. Public sector information for 1983–84 is not yet available.

Mr. Hicks: Do not those unfortunate figures show a lack of understanding of the educational requirements of Third world countries? Is it not a fact that the very people from Third world countries who are now having to seek their education in other countries will in future return to their own countries to be leaders of government, industry and central administration? Could this action now not be to the detriment of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brooke: Any fall in overseas student numbers is a cause for regret, but the fall in overseas postgraduate student numbers at universities of less than 7 per cent. since the full-cost fees policy was introduced gives some grounds for pleasure, in that the numbers have held up so well.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister pay attention to the impact on Commonwealth countries when, because of the increase in fees in this country, students go to Eastern European countries and countries behind the Iron Curtain for their further education? Will he consider particularly the political, social and economic impact for the future?

Mr. Brooke: Many Commonwealth students benefit from the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan and the various schemes of support for overseas students operated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The report published recently expresses the hope that other countries will match the British Government's expansion in the number of awards under the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan. We could not afford to consider any general concession to students from other Commonwealth countries, although we share the view about the importance of student mobility and educational interchange expressed by the Heads of Commonwealth Governments at their meeting in New Delhi last year.

Sir Paul Bryan: Has not the time come to concede that the decision in 1979 by our Government to charge full fees to overseas students has proved to be wrong?

Mr. Brooke: The Government welcome overseas students, but do not believe that they should receive an indiscriminate subsidy from the British taxpayer. We are, however, committed to schemes of targeted support for particular students and for particular countries with historic relations with the United Kingdom. Details of the way in which these schemes are developing were given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister reconsider his earlier answer? Ought he not to be appalled at the idea that a 7 per cent. drop in overseas students could mean that 7 per cent. fewer orders will be placed by those students when they return home and begin work, and that such a loss of exports might well lose this country far more than has been saved by putting up the fees?

Mr. Brooke: I cited the 7 per cent. as a demonstration of how highly our postgraduate education is valued. The particular point on foreign policy put by the hon. Member is obviously one for my right hon. and learned Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to attend a dinner given by Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the incongruous comparison yesterday by the Secretary of State for Social Services of his review with the great and constructive Beveridge report of 40 years ago will be treated with the greatest suspicion throughout the country? Is she further aware that under her Administration the number of those drawing supplementary benefit has increased by over 40 per cent. and now totals nearly 4·5 million people? Will she, therefore, in the light of those figures, give the House a categorical assurance this afternoon that, as a result of the review now under way, there will be no cut in real terms in the already shamefully low level of supplementary benefit?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is conducting a comprehensive review of four particular areas and undertaking a statistical survey of the fifth. I think that it is time for a review and that the review will be welcome. It is most unwise to presume the result of a review before it has been undertaken, and therefore I shall keep an open mind. Supplementary benefit has risen in real terms.

Mr. Hickmet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the steelworks in my constituency of Scunthorpe uses 2·6 million tonnes of coal per annum, 1·8 million tonnes of which comes from the Yorkshire pits? Is she further aware that, as a direct consequence of the action initiated by Arthur Scargill, that plant is faced with closure and the possible loss of 10,000 jobs? Is she also aware that, as a direct result of that, 11 pits in England, six of which are in Yorkshire, may also close with a possible loss of a further 15,000 jobs? Is that not a disgrace and should there not be a national ballot of the members of the National Union of Mineworkers?

The Prime Minister: I recognise what my hon. Friend has said about Scunthorpe, which has made strenuous efforts to improve its performance and has succeeded in doing so. I hope that it will have the opportunity to continue in the excellent way in which it has started under the British Steel Corporation. I agree with him that most people in the mining industry would like to have a national ballot and I hope that that desire will be supported by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Kinnock: We have heard in the past few days of the decision to permit some policemen to be armed with sub-machine guns. All Members will want to safeguard the security of leaders who will be coming for the summit meeting in June, as we want to safeguard the security of anyone else who is likely to be the target of terrorist attack. Nevertheless, can the Prime Minister tell us what on earth is the use of sub-machine guns for the purpose of personal security?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has approved the purchase by the Metropolitan police of a small number of sub-machine guns. They are intended for the protection of persons at high risk but will be issued only under the most stringent conditions and in the most exceptional circumstances, when the degree of threat against a person being protected justifies such a precaution. Authority for their issue may not be given by a person below the rank of assistant commissioner.

Mr. Kinnock: Even taking into account the interests of security, that response and, it appears, the procedures laid down, are much too vague to justify a huge change in the disposition of security personnel. Can the Prime Minister imagine what the effect would be of pursuit with sub-machine guns through a crowded London street? Will she reconsider this decision and ensure that permission to purchase and bear these arms is withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary took this step after great consideration. I have explained some of the safeguards —the order is for a small number of sub-machine guns for the protection of persons at high risk, for use only in exceptional circumstances, and authority for the issue of the guns may not be given by a person below the rank of


assistant commissioner. The officers to whom these weapons will be issued will be trained to high standards by the Metropolitan police force arms training specialists in techniques appropriate to the role of the police. They will not be trained by military personnel.

Dr. Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware, following on that question, that the Thames Valley police authority was told on Friday that it would not receive the £1·5 million promised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary towards the costs of policing at Greenham common, but would receive only half? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the balance will fall on the ratepayers and that the cost of policing these demonstrations, which are now no longer local but national, must be funded from central Government and not local ratepayers?

The Prime Minister: I have made inquiries about this matter and I understand that the grants given to the Thames Valley police authority were calculated on the ordinary rules.

Mr. Evans: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evans: During the course of the Prime Minister's busy day, will she take the Secretary of State for Social Services to one side, point out to him that no inquiry is needed into the plight of the over-50 long-term unemployed, and tell him that he could assist them immediately by paying diem the long-term rate of supplementary benefit?

The Prime Minister: I answered a similar question two or three weeks ago. To do that would require expenditure of some £450 million extra. I am always being urged by Labour Members to reduce the burden of taxation, and I cannot do that and increase public expenditure.

Mr. Lord: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one inescapable responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman finish his question. I presume that he is asking a question which the Prime Minister can answer. He cannot ask questions on what the Prime Minister's view of the Leader of the Opposition would be.

Mr. Lord: All I ask my right hon. Friend is whether, in her opinion, as Leader of the Opposition — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be much more sophisticated than that.

Mr. Lord: Is it not now time that the Leader of the Opposition asked for a national ballot on the miners' strike?

The Prime Minister: I do not answer for the Leader of the Opposition, but I live in hope that he may support such a proposition.

Mr. Hume: Does the Prime Minister accept that, with the agreement reached at the weekend by Community Ministers of Agriculture, her Minister of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Food failed to honour her pledge to the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland to achieve the same arrangements as those achieved for the Republic of Ireland? Is she aware that agriculture is the largest, and our only indigenous, industry in Northern Ireland, and does she accept that damage has been done not only to the dairy industry but to the meat exporting industry, the damage to which has been described today by its leaders as devastating? Will she at least—this is a modest request —ask her Minister to carry out an assessment of the damage done to that industry, with a view to taking corrective action?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that my right hon. Friend got a reasonable agreement for Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that in the rest of the United Kingdom farmers are having to cut down their surplus milk production, whereas in Northern Ireland, by virtue of what my right hon. Friend has managed to procure in the Community, they will have a special amount so that they can increase their production.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list he official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister take time today to reflect upon the fact that, when she became Prime Minister in 1979, in Scotland there were 154,400 unemployed, and that now in 1984 there are 434,300 unemployed? In north Lanarkshire, which incorporates my constituency, ther has been an increase since 1979 of 128 per cent. and, of these, 24·1 per cent. are males, some of whom will never work again. Will she now do something with compassion, get these people back to work, loosen the purse strings of the revenue coming from North sea oil and give them a chance to live a proper life?

The Prime Minister: I am the first to agree that unemployment has gone up in Scotland — indeed, it went up also during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are now many new industries in Scotland which have an excellent future and give good prospects for jobs. These are industries that were not there before, and which are now expanding.

Sir Peter Blaker: Since tomorrow is the 35th anniversary of the signature by Britain of the North Atlantic treaty, by a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to pay tribute to the success of the Alliance in keeping the peace for all that time by a policy of deterrence and multilateral disarmament?

The Prime Minister: Yes, NATO is our shield and our security. It is vital that that organisation continues, and I pay tribute to its function of deterrence in the nuclear field, and to the wish of all of us to try to secure multilateral disarmament in conventional and nuclear weapons at all levels. That is our object, and we shall strive ever more to succeed.

Mr. Steel: Since the Government of the Argentine sent proposals on 18 February for improving relations between our two countries, why is it taking so long to send a reply, and when will it be sent?

The Prime Minister: We sent proposals to the Argentine Government, to which they responded. We shall shortly be responding to them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that it would not have been wise to send a reply during recent days, which obviously was a time of heightened sensitivity.

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend noted the report of the CBI on the post-Budget forecast that was published yesterday, which suggests that manufacturing output will rise even more rapidly in this country this year and next year than the Government's own forecasts? Does she not think that it would be refreshing if the pessimistic people on the Opposition side of the House would just occasionally welcome something that is obviously very good news for Britain?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I do. The CBI report was excellent news, particularly following a month, indeed a quarter, of very good news about exports, and following upon very good news about higher productivity. But I do not expect right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches to welcome that. Good news for Britain is bad news for them.

Mr. Chris Smith: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports in the press in the past two weeks about the appalling conditions in which many homeless families are forced to live in inner London, and especially in Princes Lodge, Commercial road, in Tower Hamlets? Will she

now take urgent action to ensure that local authorities in London have sufficient resources to meet the problem of homelessness, or does she want the homeless on her conscience as well as the unemployed?

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the first thing to be done is to fill those many empty local authority houses, some of which have been vacant for up to a year. If they were brought into service many more people would have homes.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Arthur Scargill is a confessed Marxist, surrounded by Communist aides and advisers? Even more serious, is she aware that the support for Mr. Scargill is coming from the Kremlin?

The Prime Minister: I hear what my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House would like to hear the answer to the question.

The Prime Minister: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I am concerned that the miners should have an opportunity to express their views on their right to go to their place of work and earn a decent living. I hope that they will consider the case on merit: first, because they have a reasonable pay offer that will keep their pay about 27 per cent. above the average; secondly, because the Government have an outstanding record in supporting investment in the coal industry; and thirdly, because the Government have been reasonable in providing good amounts for early retirement and especially good redundancy payments for those who have to leave their jobs. That amounts to a vote of confidence in the miners and in the future of the industry in which they work.

British Hostages (Angola)

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) (by private notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he is now prepared to talk to UNITA to secure the release of 16 British hostages held in Angola.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Our interest in this matter is a humanitarian one. We wish to see the British hostages released as quickly as possible. Consistent with our normal position on hostage-taking, we are quite happy to speak to anyone if that is what is required to secure their release, and we are already in touch.

Mr. Leigh: Did my hon. Friend attempt to establish contact with UNITA to secure the release of the hostages, who include my constituent Mr. Dennis Clawson, as soon as they were kidnapped? Did he pass on UNITA's warning some months ago that the engineers were at risk? Was he misquoted as saying that UNITA is nothing in southern Africa, which may have prompted the kidnapping? Will he make it clear that the Government support the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Angola, including the Cubans and the East Germans?

Mr. Rifkind: On my hon. Friend's first question, we made initial representations through the Red Cross to UNITA, which said that it would not tell the United Kingdom the conditions for the release of the British hostages until after the hostages had reached its base camp in southern Angola, which they did in the past couple of days.
My hon. Friend referred to certain press reports about what I was purported to have said in South Africa. The reports that I have read in the press were inaccurate. At no time did I make any reference to UNITA in the terms that were expressed.
On the general position, we consider the present civil war between UNITA and the Angola Government to be the internal affair of Angola. Naturally, the United Kingdom hopes that peace will come to that country as soon as possible. In the meantime, it is for the people of Angola to decide their own future. We believe that the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Angola will be helpful in that connection.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On behalf of my constituent, Thomas Murphy, and his family, I thank the Minister for the patience that he has shown. Is the Minister aware that people, not least hon. Members, are becoming impatient with the disgraceful activities of UNITA? Should it not be pointed out to UNITA that its activities are in no way regarded by the House as pro-Western?
Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while he needs to use language that is delicate and diplomatic in such difficult circumstances, it should be said that the South African Government could be more helpful and that their Pontius Pilate attitude is something that we are bound to deplore?
Do not the actions of UNITA represent not coercion but outright terrorism? That should not be dressed up in any other way.

Mr. Rifkind: Any organisation or individual that takes innocent civilians as hostages, for whatever purpose,

deserves to be rebuked by both sides of the House and by all concerned with hostage-taking wherever that takes place around the world.
On the hon. Gentleman's other comments, whatever views he may have about South Africa, I hope that he will appreciate that UNITA would undoubtedly continue to exist irrespective of South African policy. What we are concerned with is the simple question of the release of British hostages, and we hope that the indications that we have from UNITA that it is prepared to release the British hostages in the near future will be fulfilled.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that no fewer than three of these hostages are my constituents? They are among the large number of people from Hereford who are legitimately and properly employed in various parts of the world in areas in which, although they may be somewhat contentious, they can reasonably expect the full protection of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, as set out on the inside of their passports. Is my hon. Friend aware that the confidence of these people's families will be very much affected by the speed, resolution and determination with which he and the Government resolve this problem?

Mr. Rifkind: I have listened with great care and attention to what my hon. Friend has said. He will, I am sure, accept that the Government are as concerned as he is to secure the early release of these British hostages. I am sure that the whole House will agree, however, that when dealing with an organisation which has taken innocent civilians and is using them as hostages, great care must be taken in any contacts that might take place with regard to the consequences for the general principle of hostage-taking in international relations.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for being so cooperative and helpful during the last few days. As he is well aware, one of my constituents, Mr. Hywel Lloyd, is involved. If negotiations go well, when does the Minister believe that the hostages will be released?

Mr. Rifkind: It is too early to give a specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. As I said in my initial reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), we are already in contact with UNITA. We obviously are pressing for as speedy a resolution of the problem as possible and as soon as we have any further specific information to convey to those who have a constituency interest in these matters, we will do so.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend accept that his decision to talk with UNITA recognises the reality of their power over the hostages? Will he keep the families concerned in this country fully informed? As he may know, one of them is in my constituency.

Mr. Rifkind: I am very happy to assure my hon. Friend that we shall do our best to keep the families concerned fully informed of any developments that take place with regard to their relatives held by UNITA in Angola.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister take up with the proprietors in Fleet street the way in which they are issuing news? As I understand it, they were contacted by UNITA and invited to a press conference to which the hostages were taken. The story as disclosed was quite distressing to one of my constituents whose husband


is a hostage. If, in the future, there happened to be bad news, rather than good news as there was this weekend, even greater distress might be caused. Would the Minister please try to prevail on the media at least to keep him informed so that he can get in touch with the families, even if it is only minutes before there are any disclosures?

Mr. Rifkind: I know that the public as a whole and certainly the families were pleased to hear that the hostages appeared to be in good physical condition after the ordeal they had had to suffer in their trek through Angola. No doubt those who are responsible for newspapers will note the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that it would be very curious if UNITA destroyed any good will that might exist for it by not releasing people who are far more innocent than those released by the Government in Angola? Will he maintain his present correct attitude of trying, on humanitarian grounds, to get the British nationals released while not giving ground for possible future attacks on British civilians by making it appear that the British Government can be twisted in this way?

Mr. Rifkind: I have said that, in accordance with our normal custom, we are perfectly willing to speak to those who for the time being have physical control of innocent British civilians. It is obviously right and proper, from a humanitarian point of view, to take that course of action. I am sure that the whole House would agree, whatever views hon. Members may have about UNITA, that any organisation that seeks to use innocent civilians for this purpose deserves to be condemned. That is true whether it is UNITA or any other organisation in any part of the world.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the Minister care to reconsider his statement that UNITA can continue its operations without the logistic and armaments support provided by South Africa? If that is really his view, it is a very surprising one to come out of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Rifkind: There is a widespread view in many countries and among many Governments that the level of support for UNITA may influence and determine its operation. The organisation itself has shown that it has some genuine support within Angola. It is impossible for any outsider to calculate the extent of that support. The consensus throughout the international community is that UNITA has some support in Angola, and it is to that that I have drawn attention.

Mr. John Wilkinson: When my hon. Friend says that the future of Angola is for the people of Angola to determine, is he explicitly committing his office to the principle of self-determination for Angola? If that is so, surely the continued presence of Cuban forces in Angola is the sole obstacle to that process of self-determination.

Mr. Rifkind: I have emphasised the fact that a civil war has been going on for a number of years within

Angola. As with other civil wars in other parts of the world, it is right and proper for the citizens of Angola to determine their own future. The presence of foreign troops in Angola does not assist the process of national reconciliation within that country. We believe that the departure of foreign troops from Angola would be beneficial to the people of Angola as a whole.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Although one accepts that the whole point of the exercise is to secure the release of the hostages, is it not a condemnation of the Government's support for the South African regime that it appears now to have no influence upon the UNITA regime? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no way of securing the release of the hostages without envisaging the break-up of Angola? Is that the import of what he is telling the House?

Mr. Rifkind: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying. That is apparent from the rather confused nature of his question. I have not expressed any view on whether South Africa does or does not have any influence over UNITA. I have said that there have been reports on the circumstances in which UNITA would be prepared to release the British hostages. If these reports are confirmed, we have said that we shall be willing to speak to UNITA in the hope that this will secure the early release of the hostages. Our concern is a humanitarian one, and we are continuing to approach the issue on that basis.

Mr. George Robertson: Is the Minister aware that we share the humanitarian concern for the fate of the 16 British hostages and that we want to see them freed as soon as possible? Is he further aware that there will be genuine concern throughout the House if direct dealings with Dr. Savimbi and UNITA were to encourage further hostage-taking, blackmail and other acts of terrorism? Is he conscious of the effect that direct dealings with UNITA may have on the Luanda accord between Angola and South Africa and hence on the chances of getting rid of South African troops from Angola?
Finally, will the Minister bear in mind the undesirability of doing anything to promote the interests of the allies of South Africa—of which clearly UNITA is one—at a time of continuing repression within that country?

Mr. Rifkind: I stress that our attitude towards this problem is based on the principles that have been established over the years following previous instances of hostage taking. We are prepared to speak to those who have physical control over British citizens, but we are not prepared to contemplate our foreign policy being determined on that basis.
The agreement that has been reached between South Africa and Angola is seen clearly to be in the interests of both countries. It is unlikely that anything affecting the British hostages will have an effect for good or ill on the accord.

Mining Dispute (Police Action)

Mr. Kevin Barron: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration namely,
the threatened arrests, the arrests and the conditions of bail involved in the current miners' dispute.
Many of my constituents have been attempting to carry out peaceful picketing in the Nottinghamshire coalfield in furtherance of their dispute. In the past three weeks they have undergone harassment by the police forces that occupy the area. They have been arrested when they have attempted to go into the coalfield and they have been turned out of their transport.
On that fateful night when a Yorkshire miner lost his life, four busloads of Yorkshire miners were told to return home when they were 10 miles from their destination. Their empty bus was given a police escort back to Yorkshire and the miners proceeded on foot.
I do not condone or make excuses for violence, but do such actions by the police help? That happens not only when miners attempt to enter the coalfields but when they leave. Some miners from Kiveton Park colliery in my constituency were leaving a coal mine after peacefully picketing when they were surrounded by the police. After names and addresses were taken, they were told that if they returned they would be heavily fined or gaoled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right.") They were escorted out of the county by two police cars and two police motor cycles. On that occasion no charges were made.
When people are charged, a condition of bail is that they do not return to that NCB work place again. Is not that like saying that they are guilty of the offences without a hearing? Over 500 people have been bailed under those conditions already. [AN HON. MEMBER: "I would have fingerprinted the lot."] The creation of a no-go area by sealing off the county of Nottinghamshire is a threat to all members of society.
Not only miners are being subjected to such treatment. Four building workers were dragged from a car at one of the road blocks. Some of my constituents are staying in what they describe as "safe houses" inside the road blocks so that they can further the trade dispute. What is happening is unprecedented in modern industrial relations.
As Member for Rother Valley in South Yorkshire I stand in the Chamber today where 47 years ago to the month, on 26 April 1937, the then Member for Rother Valley, Edward Dunn — like myself a miner from Maltby colliery in South Yorkshire — begged to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House because of what was happening at Harworth colliery in the north Nottinghamshire coalfield. Then too, there was trouble between police and pickets. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member now coming to a close? I ask that because he is dealing with arguments which are hardly urgent. He is speaking of the past.

Mr. Barron: I end by saying that I believe that what I have said about arrests and the condition of bail should be considered in an urgent debate in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the

House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threatened arrests, the arrests and the conditions of bail involved in the current miners' dispute.
I say to the hon. Member and to the House that I do not in any way under-estimate what he has said. We debated this matter last week on two orders—[HON.MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I am on my feet. We had energy questions yesterday and there will be a opportunity later this week to raise the matter during the Easter Adjournment debate.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I represent an area in the centre of Nottinghamshire. The vexed question of civil rights in a democratic society such as ours involves the civil rights of minorities. It should be no surprise to the House that 1½ million people — the majority — in Nottinghamshire would take exception to some of the remarks made today.
The problems of civil rights and civil liberties can be seen in two different ways, especially if one is part of a minority. They are seen in different lights by different individuals. I hope that those rights also apply to the 1½ million people of Nottinghamshire whom I and others represent.

Mr. Barron: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just dealt with the hon. Gentleman's application under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot take a point of order on my ruling.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In saying that you could not allow the debate sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), you said that there had recently been two debates on these matters. Last week there were debates on two orders, one dealing with concessionary coal and the other dealing with the new redundancy system introduced by the Government. You will recall that, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), you specifically made it clear that when we debated those matters late on Wednesday night there was to be no reference at all to picketing, civil liberties or the fact that in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and other areas the police were acting in such a way as to undermine the freedoms of individuals—not just miners. I believe that the Official Report of the three hours of debate in which about 20 Members took part will show that no more than about three sentences related to those matters. Moreover, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) was brought to order by the Chair, in accordance with your ruling, because he dared to venture into the subject of picketing and the police.
I put it to you once again, Mr. Speaker, that we have not had a debate about the erosion of civil liberties or about the paramilitary police and it is time that we had one. I therefore call on you to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. When we met the Home Secretary at the Home Office last Thursday, he categorically refused to discuss policing but attacked us on television the next


day for what we had been saying here. What chance do we have if we cannot put down parliamentary questions and the Home Secretary will not even discuss the subject with us?

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance as to how this matter can he brought before the House? I am not challenging what you have said about today's application under Standing Order No. 10 or my own attempt to raise the matter. Members who represent mining constituencies, as I do, receive urgent telephone calls and reports every day about people being arrested and held in cells. In my constituency, they have even been asked which way they voted in the recent by-election. That is absolutely contrary to the Ballot Act, which provides for the secrecy of the ballot. My hon. Friends and I are therefore continually seeking to bring the matter before the House.
In the debates to which you have referred, Mr. Speaker, it was out of order on your own ruling to discuss the police, and yesterday you rebuked the Secretary of State for Energy and me for going beyond the subject of energy supply. The situation still continues, and we are now told that the only opportunity to raise the matter is in the Easter Adjournment debate.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is this. If there is great disquiet on either side—my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) referred to disquiet in the other direction — and public concern throughout wide areas of the country but Parliament refuses or is unable to discuss the matter, the tension and anxiety are increased and the House is brought into disrepute. It is in that context that I seek your advice on how the subject of civil liberties and police action may be brought before the Chamber for consideration.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that the business under consideration today was chosen by the Leader of the Opposition, who seems not to have exercised his choice to the satisfaction of his right hon. and hon. Friends. When you have ruled on this matter, I shall seek to raise other issues arising out of that. It seems, however, to have escaped the notice of some Labour Members that the opportunity to raise the matter in question was in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: I will content myself with saying that I do not propose to change my ruling on Standing 3No. 10 this day. I will bear the matter very carefully in mind. I fully recognise that there is pressure in the House for a debate on these matters, and I will consider the matter as it arises.

Mr. Beith: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the cheap point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), would you make it clear that it is not the responsibility of the Opposition to call attention to matters of great national importance such as we are discussing? It is the Government's responsibility to make time available to debate such important matters. Would you make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that that consideration did not play a part in your ruling today?

Mr. Beith: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the House that I do not consider what choices are made in terms of Opposition days. I deal with applications under Standing Order No. 10 as they arise.

Opposition Days (Allocation)

Mr. Alan Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the Order Paper, this is the 12th of 19 allotted Opposition days. Of those 19 days, one has so far been made available to the Liberal party, and it has been made plain to us that that is the only day which the Leader of the Opposition will make available. One half day, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has as much right to be heard in the House as every other hon. Member. I should be grateful if those hon. Members who surround him would allow him to be heard.

Mr. Beith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of those 19 days, half a day has been allocated to the Ulster Unionist party.
Those figures do not in any way represent the balance of numbers of Members in the House among the Opposition parties, let alone their support outside it. What can you do, Mr. Speaker, to safeguard or guarantee the rights of the various groups within the House? You have just been appealed to, quite properly and understandably, by a group of Labour Members who wish to debate an issue which their leader has not seen fit to raise. I appeal to you on behalf of another group of hon. Members, widely supported in the country, who seek a fair division of the time which, in the Standing Orders of the House, is labelled not "Labour time" but "Opposition time".
I also ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, on a more technical point. Today was announced last week as a half Supply day, the second half of the day being allocated to a discussion of Europe in Government time, but it now appears on the Order Paper as a whole Supply day. Could the Leader of the House, or even the Leader of the Opposition, explain whether the second half of the day will be taken in Government or Opposition time? Have the Opposition made half a Supply day available for a debate on Europe, which was originally to have taken place in Government time? Could the Leader of the House perhaps be given an opportunity to clarify the position, and tell us whether at some stage he will be doing a trade-off with the Leader of the Opposition over the half day, so that we can debate some other subject, or whether he will take the opportunity to put down a motion giving proper rights to the various groups represented in the House?
Is there any way, Mr. Speaker, in which you can ensure that there is further consideration of the present completely wrong balance of time between the Opposition parties, and can you give the Leader of the House the opportunity to clarify what is happening today?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No——

Mr. Skinner: It is the same point.

Mr. Speaker: We have an Opposition day—I do not know whether it be a day or a half day—and a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to take part. Points of order will only use up time.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you appreciate,

Sir, that the House as a whole supports you in making your decision on this matter. If the Opposition cannot make up their mind between the wishes of some Back Benchers and the reluctance of the Front Bench to have a debate, that is not a matter for the House of Commons as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have dealt with that matter and are discussing a different point now.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice, especially since you have a copy of the Standing Orders before you, that this matter has been settled democratically — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—by Members of the House. I always had the impression, but no more than that, that the Liberals were all about ballots. There has been a ballot on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and you are now saddled with carrying out the result of the ballot.
However, I wish you to consider another point before you come to a conclusion on the point made by the Liberal Chief Whip. Most hon. Members know that there is an inner rift between one section of the alliance — the Liberals—and the SDP. When we have dismantled the cold language that surrounded the Liberal Chief Whip's appeal to you, I suggest that what we find is this: that the Liberals have 17 Members of Parliament, and the Social Democrats have only six, and that although the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did not dare say it in the Chamber for fear of offending his Social Democratic friends, this matter is all about the Liberals trying to get a bigger share of the time of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House will not expect me to comment——

Mr. David Penhaligon: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think we have had enough of this.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the House wishes to become involved in a debate on the rift — [Laughter.] —the alleged rift—between any groups in the House. I shall rule on the matter put to me by the Liberal Chief Whip. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has correctly stated, I am bound by Standing Order No. 6 and I have no authority to change it. If the House wishes to change the Standing Orders, I shall of course be bound by the change. Can the Leader of the House assist us in any way?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, that we are proceeding under Standing Order No. 6.

Mr. Speaker: Ten-minute Bill, Mr. Chope.

Mr. Penhaligon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a much more serious aspect of this matter than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would have us believe. One concept of Opposition Supply days is that they give the House an opportunity to discuss matters which the Government would not wish to discuss that week. The fact that the Labour party has now been wiped out in great swathes of the country means that important minorities have no opportunity to have their grievances brought before the House. For example, we have no opportunity to discuss agriculture on the Floor of


the House other than in Government time, and clearly the Government do not wish to discuss the incredible agreement on milk that they have just made in Europe. Yet there is no opportunity for Opposition Members who represent rural areas to raise this matter in the House. This is a much more important matter than, in some ways, the House would have us believe. Opposition Supply days are denying an important section of the community a chance to express——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting a point that I cannot answer. I am bound by the Standing Order, as has been confirmed by the Leader of the House. As to the hon. Gentleman's comment on the agreement made in Europe, there will be an opportunity to discuss that later today.

Mr. David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make a helpful suggestion? You have rightly referred to Standing Order No. 6(2), which was drafted by the House and approved by it after consideration by the Select Committee on Procedure in a previous Parliament. Since that Select Committee has been set up again, would it not be for the convenience of the House for the Committee to have a fresh look at the Standing Order in the light of the present composition of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I should think that that is a wise suggestion.

Local Government Competitive Tendering

Mr. Christopher Chope (Southampton, lichen): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for local authorities to put out to competitive tender certain Of their functions and services.
My reason for introducing the Bill is that I believe in better value for money in local government. Too many local authorities are still paying well above the market rate for their functions and services, and in so doing they are effectively defrauding the ratepayers. Local government is spending more than £30,000 million a year and employs aout 2·5 million people, and the latest Manpower Watch figures show that the numbers employed are increasing rather than decreasing. I have no doubt that a significant part of the money spent by local government each year —about 70 per cent. of which is on manpower—could be saved if competition was introduced where monopoly prevails at present.
Part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 made a start by making competitive tendering compulsory in some construction, maintenance and highway works. Now is the time to go further. There is a mass of evidence that competitive tendering results in substantially lower costs. Indeed, the figures quoted are staggering. By March this year well over 3 million people in 23 local authority districts were benefiting from the services of private contractors in the provision of refuse collection, street sweeping and associated services. Before competitive tendering, those 23 local authorities were paying £25·5 million for the services. The tender prices were £17·17 million, giving a gross margin of economy of £8·38 million, or 33 per cent. In anyone's language, that is much better value for money than it was. The savings ranged from a high of 50 per cent. to a minimum of about 15 per cent.
Furthermore, during the past two years, 15 local authorities have invited competitive tenders in the same area, and in-house savings have been achieved. The most notable example is Birmingham's refuse collection service. In all but one of those instances, substantial savings of 10 per cent. or more were achieved. All those examples are from Conservative-controlled authorities, and there is every reason to suppose that the percentage savings in Socialist-controlled authorities would be even greater.
Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House live in the London boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth. Two years ago the costs of refuse collection in the two boroughs were roughly similar—£14 a head in Lambeth and £13·10 a head in Wandsworth. Now it costs £16·40 in Lambeth, which is an increase of £2·40, but it costs only £9·30 in Wandsworth, which is a reduction of £3·80. If Lambeth were forced to go out to competitive tender for its refuse collection service, it could reduce unit costs, which are now 75 per cent. higher than in the neighbouring borough of Wandsworth.
The examples that I quoted relate solely to refuse collection, street sweeping and associated services. However, similar dramatic reductions in costs have been achieved in school and office cleaning, school meals provision and other catering services, pest control, vehicle


maintenance, garden maintenance, caretaking and architectural services. The list is even longer than that. Most significantly, on no occasion has a local authority been worse off as a result of inviting competitive tenders.
Hon. Members may wonder why every local authority is not eager to take advantage of the savings that can be made as a result of competitive tendering. Birmingham city council has reduced its rates by about 20 per cent. in two years by introducing those market disciplines. Wandsworth borough council has put out to tender sufficient services to produce annual savings in excess of £3 million. In general, if one wishes to identify an efficient, imaginative and cost-effective local authority, one looks for the one that is putting its functions and services out to competitive tender. That is an authority which puts value for money first—even ahead of the cosy alliances of vested interests that too often prevail in our town halls.
The time has now come when the best practices of some local authorities should be extended to all. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to a question last week that she was dissatisfied with progress in this area. Many hon. Members share her view and think that it is now time to shake all local authorities from their lethargy or indifference by imposing a statutory duty to seek competitive tenders. Such a duty already exists in relation to all maintenance work above £10,000 per job and all building work above £50,000 per job under the Local Goverment, Planning and Land Act 1980. The Bill that I seek to introduce would extend those principles into a wider range of local government functions and services.
The Bill is not born out of dogma. Local authorities have common law fiduciary duties to their ratepayers. The Bill seeks to give the fiduciary duty statutory legal backing so that there is a duty to put functions and services out to tender and, save in exceptional circumstances, a duty to accept the lowest tender.
Lord Scarman observed in the case of the London borough of Bromley v. the GLC that fiduciary duty
is no more than a common justice".
Sadly, it is a common justice that too many local authorities have been ignoring.
The Labour Government wrote in their 1977 Green Paper:
It is in everyone's interest that local services should be provided as efficiently and economically as possible. Waste, extravagance and inefficiency lead to higher taxes and lower standards of services.
I agree with that proposition. I hope, therefore, to have the support of all hon. Members in seeking leave to introduce the Bill. It is the key to better quality local government services at much lower cost.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I rise to oppose the motion. So that it is on the record, I want to inform the House that I am sponsored as a Member of the House by the National Union of Public Employees. If any hon. Member cares to look at the Register of Interests he will see that in it. If hon. Members look in the register at the entry for the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Mr. Chope) they will find that he registers himself as a member of the greatest closed shop of all time, that of barristers, but he fails to inform the House whether a

statement in The Observer of 13 November last year that he was engaged as a parliamentary consultant for Grand Metropolitan is correct.

Mr. Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member seeking to intervene?

Mr. Chope: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I informed the House about November of last year that there was no truth whatsoever in that article in The Observer. Indeed, many Opposition Members retracted their allegations against me. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is not willing to do the same.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the House that hon. Members would be very wise to stick to the merits of the argument and not to indulge in personal comments.

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Corbyn: I think the House——

Mr. Speaker: Order. In terms of good order, if the hon. Member accepts what has just been said, I think it would be wise if he withdrew his remark.

Mr. Corbyn: Of course I accept what the hon. Member has said, but it would have been clearer if he had told us that he was not involved in any organisation that is seeking to promote the privatisation of public services.

Mr. Chope: I make an unequivocal assertion that I am not involved in any group that is involved in this issue. I am a barrister and a Member of Parliament, and that is the limit.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please let us deal with the merits of the argument and nothing else.

Mr. Corbyn: The House will be aware—this the hon. Member for Itchen cannot refute—that for many years he was the leader of Wandsworth council, which has a disastrous record in the provision of public services and the destruction of jobs in that borough. There are hundreds of people in the dole queue in Wandsworth who have very deep feelings against the hon. Member for his work in destroying their jobs and their livelihoods. There are also many people in Wandsworth who rue the day that his party won control of that borough and provided them with such appalling and expensive services. His guiding light and mentor has been an organisation called the Adam Smith Institute.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is about to say that we should deal with the merits of the argument, I agree with him.

Mr. Hickmet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was going to make that point. Furthermore, I wanted to ask for a ruling from you as to whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to conduct this disgraceful attack, which has no basis in truth on my hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: The House and the hon. Gentleman, although he is a relatively new Member, well know that every hon. Member takes responsibility for his own


speech. Again, I ask the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to stick to the merits of the argument. This is a ten-minute Bill and he may speak only briefly in opposing it.

Mr. Corbyn: The reason why I point to Wandsworth council as an example is that the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen was the leader of that council during its drive for privatisation. If the hon. Member is seeking to make the rest of the country like Wandsworth council, then the rest of the country should know what things are like in the bitter experience of Wandsworth. Other people need to know how many jobs have been lost and the waste of money that has resulted in Wandsworth because of privatisation.
I shall give just one example; I would quote more if I had more time. A contract was entered into by Wandsworth borough council with Pritchard Industrial Services Limited for gardening services. On competitive tendering, the firm won the contract with a tender which was allegedly £30,000 cheaper than the direct labour tender in competition to it. I have to inform the House that less than six months later £138,000-worth of penalties had been incurred by Pritchard. I quote from the report of the leisure and amenities services committee of 27 October 1983 on the director's action:
In view of the continuing backlog of work existing on 21 October and the inability of the contractor to meet the specification, I consulted with the chairmen and subsequently on 26 October I notified Pritchards Industrial Services Limited by letter that the council was terminating the garden maintenance service contract with effect from 1 November 1983".
That was after gardeners with many years of loyal service to Wandsworth borough council had been forced out of work and this contract had been imposed on the borough. The people of the borough were treated most disgracefully.
There is a similar dispute about privatisation involving a firm related to those contractors going on in Barking general hospital. A subsidiary company called Crothalls has announced that as of this year it will no longer pay Whitley council wages to staff that it employs in that hospital. Their wages will be cut. The basic wage will disappear. The hours of work will be reduced, but staff will be expected to do exactly the same amount of work. Conservative Members who preach to the House and to the country at large about the benefits of privatisation are forcing people on low wages to do appalling jobs that they would not think of doing themselves.
I should like to tell the House of the cost of jobs lost through privatisation. The motive for profit is not a motive for saving on the public purse, because those who become and who remain unemployed are a charge on the public purse. The motive for privatisation is to put money in the pockets of private contractors. It is as simple as that. I shall quote from two places. In Southend, where the refuse collection service previously employed 297 people, after privatisation the number is 213. In Wandsworth, the relevant figure has been reduced from 316 to 196. I can only speculate about what has happened to the others. I can only speculate about the devastation to their families as a result of their being forced out of work. In Wirral district council, the reduction is from 456 to 254.
The way in which profits are made is simple. In local authority employment, under national agreements, workers enjoy a 39-hour week with 20 days holiday, 26 weeks on full pay in the event of sickness, followed by a

further 26 weeks on half pay. Grand Metropolitan offers six weeks sick pay at nine tenths the basic wage and nothing beyond that.
The sordid litany goes on, with companies touring the country trying to get local authorities to hand their contracts to private enterprise, and they are operating with some strange bedfellows. One firm has a parent company. Waste Management International, registered in Bermuda, which has been found to be inadequate in its storage of toxic materials in a lagoon in Ohio. The disaster which is being caused to people there could be introduced here.
With all the propaganda and parliamentary and local authority lobbying that has gone on for local authority direct labour contracts, it is interesting to note that few have been handed to local authorities. Twice as many——

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has been speaking for longer than my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) in presenting the Bill? In any event the hon. Gentleman has not even touched on the subject of education.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has spoken for longer than the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope), largely because of the number of interruptions. I am watching the time carefully. I trust that he will now bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Corbyn: I shall do that, Mr. Speaker. The vast majority of councils which have even considered privatisation have found against it because they want control over their destiny and staff and do not want to hand those to private profit and exploitation. They do not wish to sell off the capital assets that go with their services.
Those who believe that privatisation brings savings should consider where the profit—for example, of the cleaning company called Exclusive, of nearly £1 million on a turnover of only £25 million—comes from if not from the public purse and the exploitation of the workers involved. Those of us who have experienced the problem of trying to repair council estates that were jerry built by half-baked contractors appreciate the value of public service and the motive that goes with it.
I trust that this afternoon the House will reject this tawdry move to impose the standards of Wandsworth on the rest of the country.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 170.

Division No. 220]
[4.22 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Anthony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Batiste, Spencer
Bruinvels, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buck, Sir Antony


Bellingham, Henry
Budgen, Nick


Bendall, Vivian
Burt, Alistair


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Butterfill, John


Berry, Sir Anthony
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carttiss, Michael






Chapman, Sydney
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Chope, Christopher
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Moate, Roger


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cockeram, Eric
Monro, Sir Hector


Colvin, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Coombs, Simon
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Couchman, James
Moynihan, Hon C.


Cranborne, Viscount
Mudd, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Nicholls, Patrick


Dover, Den
Norris, Steven


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Onslow, Cranley


Eggar, Tim
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Favell, Anthony
Parris, Matthew


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Fookes, Miss Janet
Pollock, Alexander


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Powell, William (Corby)


Forth, Eric
Powley, John


Fox, Marcus
Price, Sir David


Franks, Cecil
Proctor, K. Harvey


Fry, Peter
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Gale, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion


Galley, Roy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Rowe, Andrew


Glyn, Dr Alan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Gower, Sir Raymond
Ryder, Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Greenway, Harry
Sayeed, Jonathan


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Grist, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Ground, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sims, Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hannam, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Haselhurst, Alan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Spencer, Derek


Hawksley, Warren
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hayes, J.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hayward, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stern, Michael


Heddle, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hickmet, Richard
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hirst, Michael
Stokes, John


Holt, Richard
Sumberg, David


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Terlezki, Stefan


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Irving, Charles
Thornton, Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Townend, John (Bridlington,


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Twinn, Dr Ian


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Walden, George


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Wall, Sir Patrick


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Waller, Gary


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Walters, Dennis


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ward, John


Lilley, Peter
Watts, John


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Lord, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lyell, Nicholas
Wheeler, John


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Whitfield, John


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Maclean, David John
Wood, Timothy


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Yeo, Tim


McQuarrie, Albert



Madel, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Malins, Humfrey
Mr. Michael Fallon and


Marlow, Antony
Mr. Christopher Murphy.


Meyer, Sir Anthony





NOES


Alton, David
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy


Ashdown, Paddy
Barron, Kevin


Ashton, Joe
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Beith, A. J.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bell, Stuart





Benn, Tony
Kennedy, Charles


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
Lambie, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Lamond, James


Blair, Anthony
Leadbitter, Ted


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Leighton, Ronald


Boyes, Roland
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Buchan, Norman
Loyden, Edward


Caborn, Richard
McCartney, Hugh


Campbell, Ian
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKelvey, William


Canavan, Dennis
Maclennan, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McNamara, Kevin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McWilliam, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Madden, Max


Clarke, Thomas
Marek, Dr John


Clay, Robert
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Harry
Meadowcroft, Michael


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Michie, William


Conlan, Bernard
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbett, Robin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nellist, David


Cowans, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
O'Brien, William


Craigen, J. M.
O'Neill, Martin


Crowther, Stan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunningham, Dr John
Parry, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Patchett, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Pavitt, Laurie


Deakins, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Dobson, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Dormand, Jack
Pike, Peter


Douglas, Dick
Prescott, John


Dubs, Alfred
Radice, Giles


Duffy, A. E. P.
Randall, Stuart


Eadie, Alex
Redmond, M.


Eastham, Ken
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Ellis, Raymond
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Ewing, Harry
Robertson, George


Fatchett, Derek
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rogers, Allan


Fisher, Mark
Rooker, J. W.


Flannery, Martin
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Forrester, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Foster, Derek
Sheerman, Barry


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Freud, Clement
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


George, Bruce
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Godman, Dr Norman
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, John
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Spearing, Nigel


Hardy, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Stott, Roger


Haynes, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Straw, Jack


Heffer, Eric S.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Home Robertson, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Howells, Geraint
Tinn, James


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Weetch, Ken


Johnston, Russell
Welsh, Michael


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wilson, Gordon


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Winnick, David






Woodall, Alec
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Robert Litherland and



Mr. Jim Callaghan.

Question accordingly negatived

Opposition Day

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Education

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened most carefully to the points of order after Question Time. Would you make it clear to the House that the debate continues until 10 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know for how long the Opposition day debate is likely to continue. The hon. Gentleman's point of order is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Giles Radice: I beg to move,
That this House, aware of the concern felt by parents and teachers about inadequate educational provision in many parts of the country and believing that the future of this nation depends on developing the skills and abilities of all our people and that therefore investment in education ought to be increased rather than diminished, deplores the Government's curbs on local authority educational expenditure which, as Her Majesty's Inspectors have warned, are already threatening standards in our schools; and deeply regrets the Government's plans (Cmnd. 9143) to cut back on educational spending.
Most hon. Members would agree that education is vital to the individual citizen because it gives him or her the knowledge, understanding, experience and self-confidence to participate in and contribute to the development of society. It is vital because it provides a means of social mobility—a way of ironing out some of the enormous inequalities and handicaps of environment and background. It is vital because, by opening up access to language and literature, to music, drama and art, to scientific, mathematical and technical achievement it helps to improve the quality and standard of life.
Education will be equally important for the nation as a whole in the critical years ahead as North sea oil runs out —the Government have not made the best use of North sea oil—when Britain's greatest asset will be its human capital, the skills, abilities and intelligence of all of its people. The most effective way to develop that stock of human capital is through education in our schools and colleges.
If we are right in believing that education has that importance, it follows that investment in education and spending on education should be a top priority. The merest glance at the latest White Paper, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1984–85 to 1986–87", reveals that the Government have not made education a top priority. It is clear from table 1.14 that the big increases in spending have been in agriculture, which is up 40 per cent. since 1979, in law and order, which is up 33 per cent., in defence, which is up by 23 per cent. and paying for unemployment, where the cost has nearly trebled.
By contrast, education spending has remained roughly stable—indeed, it represents a declining share of total spending. Perhaps the clearest indication of the Government's priorities can be shown by comparing defence and education spending. In 1978–79 we were spending nearly £600 million more on education than on


defence, whereas in 1983–84 we are spending more than £2 billion more on defence than on education. In 1984–85, it is planned that the gap will widen still further to well over £3·5 billion in what are referred to in the White Paper's jargon as "cost terms".
The Secretary of State, at a recent meeting with the executive of the National Union of Teachers, as reported in the Teacher magazine on 16 March, had the honesty to admit that education is not a top Conservative spending priority. I am impressed by the Secretary of State's honesty. To be fair, I have been impressed by that at other times. But I challenge him to provide a justification for spending so much more on weapons and the armed forces than on the education of our children. I thought that the Secretary of State might intervene at this point.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) for giving way. I hope that we shall intervene no further in each other's speeches in this short debate.
I said that the Conservative Party had fought and won two general elections on an undertaking, which we have fulfilled, to protect and increase public spending in real terms on four great sectors: defence, law and order, the health services and retirement pensions. The hon. Gentleman misleads the House and the country by misquoting me.

Mr. Radice: No. The Secretary of State has just confirmed my words. The implication was that education was not a top priority. I stand by what I said, and the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed it.

Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. We do not have much time.

Mr. Freud: It is on this point.

Mr. Radice: I shall give way, but this is the last time.

Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman said that we do not have much time. Surely five and a half hours is ample time. This is a Supply day on education, generally admitted to be an important subject. Why is the hon. Gentleman saying that we do not have much time?

Mr. Radice: I know the hon. Gentleman's real interest in education. His intervention was not sensible. It was more frivolous than I would expect of him. I hope that he does not mind me saying that.
I should like to make the Secretary of State's case for him. He will claim today that the Government have managed to keep education spending roughly stable in real terms during their period of office and that spending per pupil has never been higher. However, I say strongly that it is ludicrous for the Minister to take credit for that achievement, if achievement it can be called. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If Conservative Members will contain their impatience, I shall tell them the reason.
The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the real reason why education spending has kept level is that local education authorities, particularly Labour authorities, have responded to the wishes of their communities and protected their educational budgets by

spending beyond what was planned by Whitehall. In 1982–83, local authority educational spending was nearly £400 million or 4·2 per cent. above the rate support grant settlement figure for education. In 1983–84 the figure was £700 million or 7·5 per cent. above the RSG for education. Those figures make it abundantly clear that it is the local education authorities, particularly the Labour authorities that the Secretary of State accuses wrongly of overspending, that have saved the Secretary of State and enabled him to claim that he has kept spending stable. The reality is that the Secretary of State has been basking undeservedly—and will try to bask again—in reflected glory.
There is also the issue of falling rolls. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that, apart from the efforts of Labour local authorities, the other reason why spending per pupil has risen and there is a marginal improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio, which I welcome, is falling rolls. Even this Secretary of State cannot claim responsibility for them.
However, I blame the right hon. Gentleman for the Government's plans to cut educational spending by 6·9 per cent. in real terms for the coming year. As spending will be falling faster than pupil numbers—they will fall by about 2 per cent. in the coming year—that implies a fall in spending per pupil, and despite falling rolls, little if any improvement in pupil-teacher ratios.
It is possible to argue, as did a leader in The Times Educational Supplement, that the White Paper represents only plans and that the spending cuts implied in the White Paper may not happen. I hope that they do not. Sadly, however, there are already reports that local education authorities, faced by the severe targets and penalties regime and the prospect of rate-capping in 1985–86, are already cutting their budgets. In some instances, local education authorities hardly famous for being big spenders, such as Devon, East Sussex and Somerset, are cutting back. However, more progressive authorities such as Newcastle and Cleveland, which so far have done everything possible to protect their educational budgets, are also being forced to rein back. Therefore, in future the local education authorities are unlikely to be able to come galloping, like the United States cavalry, to the Secretary of State's rescue, as they have done so often in the past.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Radice: Yes, but this is the last time.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is a central point. He said that the pupil-teacher ratio is in question. What is the ideal pupil-teacher ratio in his view?

Mr. Radice: The ratio should be much lower than it is now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course it should be. I rejoice that it has been reduced somewhat, but that is because of falling rolls, not because of a deliberate act of policy. The Labour local authorities with the best PTR record have kept the national average down. We should remember that 1·25 million pupils are still in classes of over 31 pupils. I note that no significant improvement in PTR is planned in the next three years.
Another of the Secretary of State's arguments is that he claims that there is scope for the redeployment of existing resources.

Mr. Barry Porter: There is.

Mr. Radice: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is interested in the debate. He is not normally interested in education matters. We welcome him to our debate.
The Secretary of State claims that there is scope for redeployment. It is up to him to prove his case. Is he telling the House that authorities such as Birmingham and Hertfordshire should pay for our schools by cutting the wages of already low-paid dinner ladies by between 5 per cent. and 25 per cent.? Is he still insisting, as he did in Question Time, that there can be no improvement in the PTR and book provision unless the teachers are prepared to accept a 3 per cent. increase, which the right hon. Gentleman knows is below the rate of inflation and the going rate? Most fair-minded people would call that blackmail.
The Secretary of State's final argument is that somehow the level of resources does not matter. The Opposition freely admit and accept that, even with a similar level of resources and, equally important a similar social background, some schools and authorities perform better than others. To that extent, money is not everything. The quality of teaching is vital, but that also involves money, as the Secretary of State well knows. I should like him to admit that for the past three years his own advisers on quality and standards—Her Majesty's Inspectorate—has warned him about the impact of financial stringency on educational provision. I am sure that the Secretary of State knows the HMI reports by heart. All the same, I shall quote parts of the reports and I shall go on quoting from them until he admits that resources matter.

Sir Keith Joseph: Not until 10 o'clock.

Mr. Radice: No, not until 10 o'clock.
In its latest report, the HMI said:
Last year's report pointed out that LEAs and schools were surviving financially by doing less and that they were obliged to take the less in the form it came to hand rather than by shaping it to meet educational priorities. Even with evidence of much sharper management, that is the ground that is being held. It is characterised by levels and standards of resources which are sometimes inadequate to maintain the status quo (already limited in many cases); by significant disparities between and within schools; and by schools in general being less than well placed to respond constructively and enthusiastically to the many calls for educational improvement and change that come from the education service itself and from parents and society, and which often require either extra educational range or diversification or both.
The inspectorate reported that in primary schools there were shortages in remedial teaching, in mathematics, in science in music and in art and design. In secondary schools there were also shortages of specialist teachers, as shown in a quarter of all returns made to HMIs for individual schools.
At primary school level, book provision was judged to be unsatisfactory in two-fifths of local education authorities. At secondary level it was even worse—unsatisfactory in three-fifths of local education authorities. There were significant shortfalls of materials and equipment in both primary and secondary schools. As expenditure is squeezed, "pay as you learn" is increasing. Conservative Members do not object to parents having to pay for education directly out of their own pockets, but we reject the view that a child's right to decent educational provision should depend on where he or she lives.
Members will know from their own authorities and from correspondence with parents and teachers that the overall provision is likely to worsen rather than to improve

in the coming year. We already have examples of local authorities who are cutting back. East Sussex is cutting back by £1·7 million. This will mean a loss of 150 teaching posts—I admit that one-third of these are due to falling rolls but two-thirds are not — and cuts in the school library service. Hampshire is cutting back by £800,000 which will mean the loss of 250 teaching posts and a further cut in capitation. Devon is also cutting back. It is failing to increase capitation in line with inflation, it is cutting teacher supply and it is cutting in-service training, something that I would consider very important and dear to the Secretary of State's heart.
What is so extraordinary to my mind, however, is that, in view of the evidence provided by the HMIs and of the reports now coming in of what is being decided by local education authorities, the Secretary of State is not demanding publicly that those local authorities that are not now providing an adequate level of service bring their provision up to standard. Perhaps it is because they all happen to be Conservative authorities. Instead, he fulminates against Labour authorities such as ILEA which maintain an adequate level of provision.
I hope that the Secretary of State has read the excellent report on improving secondary schools in ILEA by an independent committee chaired by David Hargreaves. Its proposals should be of great interest to the Secretary of State and I hope that he and his Minister have already read them. The report is one of the most important to have been produced in recent yars. It points out that the Inner London education authority has exceptional problems, including a much higher average level of pupils from one-parent families, greater deprivation and poverty and one in six pupils without English as a first language.
The report concludes that, if the committee's proposals for reform are to be implemented, ILEA must continue to maintain its level of provision. In a warning to the Secretary of State, who persists in his ludicrous plan to abolish ILEA and to cut its budget—or does he persist in it? One does not know from the reports one reads—

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, I do.

Mr. Radice: In that case, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will heed the warning from this committee when it comments:
we do not assume a decline in resources. If this occurs then the constraints against development will be vastly greater than they now are.
Looking further ahead, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the Government's Green Paper on public spending over the next 10 years and what it has to say about cuts in education spending. I am also—and l have to say this to the Minister—dismayed by the so-called great debate on higher education which, in reality, is perceived by the Government as little more than a smokescreen for cutting provision. It is about time that the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues understood that spending on education is not, as they apparently believe, inherently wasteful, a mortal sin, something that has to be cut back. They should realise that we are a rich nation that can well afford to invest, in a steady and sustained way, in education. Even this Government project an annual growth rate of 2·25 per cent. per annum for the next five years, so, even on the Government's figures, there are extra resources. The question s riot whether we can afford to invest but whether we can afford not to do so.
As Tom Stonier, professor of science and society at Bradford university, has recently reminded us, when we educate our children we are investing in the intellectual infrastructure of the economy. When we cut back on education we cut back on knowledge, on information, on invention, in short, on all those things that we need to survive and prosper as a nation.
There are obvious priorities for investment in education on which many could agree, such as a continued—and I stress the word—expansion of under-five provision, and improving levels of achievement in our schools. Here the Secretary of State has put forward his own plans for reform and, as he knows, we gave his proposals a conditional welcome. That is the way in which an Opposition should act and I wish that the Conservative Opposition had had more of the same attitude in the 1970s. We gave them a conditional welcome, especially as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to acknowledge that comprehensive schools had improved their standards.
However, we warned him, as I warn him again today, that his proposals will need extra resources if we are to have reform of examinations, development of the curriculum, a better quality of teaching and in-service training. These things cannot be done without extra money.
We need a coherent solution of the problems of the 16 to 19-year-old age group which faces a crisis of major proportions — mass unemployment, inadequate training and too few staying on at school. We should also take the opportunity of any shortfall in the number of 18-year-olds to widen substantially access to higher and continuing education. This is a relevant, realistic and necessary programme for investment.

Mr. Porter: How much?

Mr. Radice: If the hon. Gentleman will contain his impatience, I will tell him. There will certainly be the money and the resources required to finance such useful investment. That is not the problem. What is lacking is the right attitude of mind, the imagination and the will which, I fear, will never come from this Secretary of State and this Government. What is needed is a Labour Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which understands that investment in our children is investment in our country's future.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the improvements in the level of educational provision since 1979, including the increased proportion of under-fives in school, the lower pupil-teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools, the expansion of non-advanced further education and the growth in participation in higher education and endorses the Government's policies for raising the standards and effectiveness of the education service within the resources available 
We must all try to be brief during this truncated debate. There are twice as many Members on the Government side of the House listening to the debate as there are on the Opposition side of the House.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: There are twice as many Conservative Members altogether.

Sir Keith Joseph: If the Opposition really believed in the motion, there would be more support than the five members of the Labour party present.

Mr. Sheerman: There are only nine Conservative Members present.

Sir Keith Joseph: That is nearly twice as many.
It appears from the speech made by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) that the Labour party still lives in a land of make-believe, with no financial constraints. Today, the hon. Member, who I know takes the subject of education intensely seriously, has continued the Labour party practice of making promises and half-promises to almost every interest in the land.
I shall not spend too long on this subject, but when the Labour party was last in power its profligacy in its first years led to the arrival of the International Monetary Fund and, as a result, sharp cuts in public expenditure, including one of no less than 4 per cent. in real terms in education in one year. The last Labour Government belatedly recognised reality in their last public expenditure White Paper. They then announced plans for education that meant an increase in real terms of barely 1 per cent. for the next three years. They called for economies to be made on running costs in schools and for a reduction of nearly 20,000 in the number of teachers as rolls fell, raised charges for school meals, imposed a cut of 20 per cent. in capital expenditure on schools and a cut in previous plans for student numbers in higher education. That was the Labour party's record after a few years in office.
Today, the Labour party has discovered a new word with which to justify its policy of profligate spending. They call it "investment". However, there is no virtue in investment unless it is effective investment; there is no merit in investment for its own sake. It is a means to an end, in this case the means to good education. There is no evidence that the Labour party has understood that, while resources matter, much better use can be made of the vast resources available to education.
I shall show now what has been done in the past few years, and I shall meet squarely the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Durham, North. Let me remind the House of a few statistics. Since 1978–79 — the last Labour Government year — the number of pupils has fallen by about four times as much as spending on schools. In other words, the Government have deliberately kept their reduction in spending on education to only part of the reduction that has occurred in school rolls. This means that expenditure per pupil in real terms is at record levels, having risen since 1978–79 by nearly 13 per cent. in primary schools and by 9 per cent. in secondary schools.
Secondly, the pupil-teacher ratio in January 1979 was at 18·9:1. I am glad to say the pupil-teacher ratio this year stood at 17·8:1—a substantial fall. It is now at its best level ever. Thirdly, a slightly bigger proportion of the under-fives are in schools than ever before. Fourthly, substantial resources have been made available to meet rising demand for non-advanced further education.
These and other improvements—for example, in the provision of books, which rose by nearly 10 per cent. in real terms in 1982·83 — have been accompanied by savings in less important educational sectors and services. Expenditure on school meals has been cut by nearly a third in real terms in the past four years, wile the poorest families continue to get free meals. The rate of removing


surplus school places has accelerated. If all local authorities followed the example set by the most efficient, the available resources would go that much further.
The hon. Member for Durham, North said that these figures are true only because of overspending, largely by Labour local education authorities. I fear that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. He has forgotten that the Government put aside what was called an unallocated margin for local education authority expenditure. Appropriating legitimately, for the purpose of the argument, the same proportion of that unallocated margin as is represented by the educational share of local authority expenditure, there was not an overspend to anything like the extent that the hon. Gentleman claimed. There was overspending of about £250 million, but I have to tell him—alas, with some regret—that some of that was Conservative overspending. It was not all Labour. The Government deliberately planned for the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio and deliberately reduced the spending on schools by significantly less than the fall in the pupils in those schools. That is why the Government are entitled to take some credit for the record levels of pupil-teacher ratio, and as I shall show, the record level of class size.

Mr. Radice: rose——

Sir Keith Joseph: I shall allow the hon. Gentleman only one intervention.

Mr. Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that local authorities have spent more than he planned they should spend and that therefore they—as well as the falling rolls — must take much of the credit for the increased spending per pupil and for the decline in the PTRs? The Secretary of State must give them some of the credit. I am disturbed that the Secretary of State is now planning for a reduction in the cost per pupil and for little improvement, if any, in PTRs.

Sir Keith Joseph: Calculating on my feet, I can give credit for the lower pupil-teacher ratio to the extent of about a third of the overspending of local education authorities.
The hon. Member for Durham, North laid much stress on the HMI reports. We have read them; they contain many things that are satisfying and many that are not. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I doubt whether many teams of Ministers in the Department of Education and Science over the years have read all the HMI reports. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister scrupulously read every one when she was in that Department, but I beg leave to doubt whether every one of her predecessors did so.
The HMI report from which the hon. Member for Durham, North quoted related to the autumn of 1982. I am glad to say that there have been significant improvements since then. For instance, there was a sharp rise of about 10 per cent. in the provision of books in the year 1982–83. The report for the year ending autumn 1983 will be published later this year. I have no idea what will be in it, as it is entirely the product of the HMI.
I agree with the hon. Member that the recently published Hargreaves report on secondary education in ILEA, which I have read, contains many good things. I am glad to see the attention that the report gives to the issue

that the Government take most seriously — the importance of raising the standards of secondary education for all abilities.
I must tell the hon. Member for Durham, North that, despite his doubts, there is scope for further redeployment within existing spending. I have some evidence that hon. Gentlemen will surely take seriously. In 1982–83, 15 local education authorities succeeded in reducing their cash expenditure on school meals by between 20 and 32 per cent. below their 1979–80 level while maintaining a full meals service. I am not taking into this calculation the three authorities that went further than that, and saved more money. Had all authorities reduced net expenditure by 20 per cent. —I am taking the lower end of the bracket — below the 1979–80 level, more than £70 million could have been freed for other purposes. What those 15 local education authorities have done—they are not even all Tory authorities — could surely be done throughout the country by other local education authorities.
I shall not talk today about the possibilities of saving which have been demonstrated to different extents throughout the country in heating, in the speed with which surplus places are taken out of use and even—although one has to go gingerly about this—in cleaning services. It is regrettably true that savings now made by many local education authorities would have to be used to help them get down near to their targets, to avoid paying penalties. However, that only reflects the folly of some local education authorities in refusing to redeploy from overspending unnecessarily in some part of their services at an earlier date.
I have to acknowledge, before hon. Members seek to interrupt me, that some local education authorities have sought efficiency over the years, and have precious little scope left now for redeployment. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recognised their legitimate expectations in the debate on local government that took place a few weeks ago.
I want to emphasise again that the pupil-teacher ratio is at the lowest —the best—level ever, 17·8:1. The improvement is even sharper than the Government planned, to some limited extent because of the overspending to which the hon. Member for Durham, North referred.
The size of classes is a record low, with significant, if not enormous, falls in the size of classes in the last five years. However, I freely acknowledge that, despite the best ever pupil-teacher ratio, there are constant claims that this or that element in the curriculum is at risk, and/or that not enough remedial teachers are at work. I take these points very seriously. Where this is so—I realise that it is so in some places—I believe that, at least in some cases, the problem arises because the available teachers are not being used to the best effect. There are important and difficult management responsibilities here for local authorities, head teachers and heads of department. h may be that in some cases too much of the improvement over recent years in the pupil-teacher ratio has been used for a general reduction in class sizes, and that marginally larger classes would enable more remedial teaching to take place, and the curriculum to be better protected, without taking away from the important lesson preparation and other work that teachers have to do. It is only by some such analysis——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose——

Sir Keith Joseph: No, I shall not give way. I am stating something that I believe to be true. We can debate it another time, but there is not time today, if hon. Members are to have a chance of speaking in the debate.
The difficult task of teacher deployment has a relationship with the protection of the curriculum, and with the provision of remedial teaching, and the fall in the pupil-teacher ratio in recent years should give scope for good management to protect the curriculum and remedial teaching.
As important as the good management of teaching resources is the effectiveness of schooling as a whole. That is why I wish to remind the House briefly of the north of England programme of the Government, a programme announced by me on behalf of the Government at the north of England conference in January this year. This is a five-pronged programme, including the reform of teacher training, more and better in-service training, an agreed curriculum which would be of great help to teachers and pupils and a transformation of examinations over the next five years, I hope, involving a move towards grade-related criteria that will present pupils of all levels of ability with clear attainable aims at different grades.
Those aims will represent higher standards than now in most cases, because we believe that the potential of young people of all abilities is nowhere near being fully developed at present. But, because we recognise that examinations are not all, the fifth prong of the programme is the introduction nationally, after pilot schemes, of records of achievement. The Government are now discussing these aims with local education authorities and with teachers.
I want merely to name the other additional and parallel aims in education that the Government have. We aim at, and are starting upon, the injection of a technical and practical element in the curriculum for all abilities, and pilot schemes under the technical and vocational education initiative are in hand. We aim to seek to widen the degree to which girls take other than traditional feminine subjects in the curriculum. We aim to broaden A-levels. We aim to define more demanding primary phase objectives. We aim to encourage discussion in the classroom so as to improve articulateness. I apologise for the horrible noun, but the alternative, oracy, is even nastier. We seek to inject relevance as well as breadth, balance and differentiation into the classroom, and we seek to increase economic awareness.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have to decide by the end of June what to do about the 16-plus examination. I wish to remind the House that the numbers of higher education students are up sharply —50,000, or 13 per cent., more on a record vintage than when Labour were last in office. The demand for advanced and further education is expanding. The Government welcome warmly the initiative of the committee of vice-chancellors and principals in setting up a committee on standards in higher education at universities under the chairmanship of the vice-chancellor of Lancaster.
It is early still in the life of this Parliament. The question is whether Labour will learn the two crucial lessons about education. The first is that money is not the only factor, although of course it matters in education. Far

more improvement can be achieved by the initiatives that the Government are taking than merely by more money, from wherever it comes. Secondly, before extra money is sought, existing huge budgets should be more effectively spent.
I hope that the House will reject the motion, and that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for the amendment.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I am sure that the Secretary of State was mightily helped by his hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), not from a sedentary position, but from a recumbent position, from whom I am sure we shall hear a brilliant speech on education later.
The Secretary of State, in his inimitable way—and I always pay tribute to him—initiated the HMI reports, and we are grateful for that. I often wonder whether he did it inadvertently because they are so damning when one reads them, and it is good that they are. The Secretary of State is always saying that there is no virtue in investment unless it can be justified. That carries the oblique implication that, with regard to education, somehow it cannot be justified. We usually hear the slogan that the Prime Minister got from somewhere that one does not solve problems by throwing money at them. When the right hon. Gentleman said that about money, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said, "but it helps". Of course it helps. It does not help if large amounts of money are wrested from education — no matter how many lovely nouns such as "articulateness" are used.
I hope that the critieria that the right hon. Gentleman applies to education are also to be applied to such matters as nuclear weapons, the Falkland Islands and the Common Market. Vast amounts of money are being thrown at those problems—and are not solving them—while money is being taken away from education. Last year, no less than £12 billion flowed from this country to our competitors. Even if only a small paert of that had been spent on education, it would have helped our economy and put people back to work.
Various articles have been written in The Times Educational Supplement during the past few months. In December it stated:
Rate-capping would force local authorities to keep to Government targets for education spending and thus strip them of decision-making.
An article in July referred to the HMI report for 1982. We are awaiting the new report, which I hope will be published soon, and which I am sure will provide a great deal of evidence about cuts. The article is headed "Cuts: holding the line—just".
The Conservative party is eternally talking about higher standards in education. I could open practically any page of last year's HMI report and would find it deeply critical of standards—even though the HMIs do their best to be polite in their criticisms. The report states:
though the ground is being held, it is important to remember what ground. Last year's report"—
the report for 1981—
pointed out that LEAs and schools were surviving financially by doing less and that they were obliged to take the less in the form it came to hand rather than by shaping it to meet educational priorities. Even with evidence of much sharper management, that


is the ground that is being held. It is characterised by levels and standards of resources which are sometimes inadequate to maintain the status quo, (already limited in many cases).
On the next page, the report talks about the cuts in in-service training and states flatly:
Weaknesses noted in the provision for in-service training and induction are likely to relate at least in part to shortage of advisers.
In other words, there has been a cut in the necessary number of advisers for the vital in-service training of teachers.
I advise all education committees, one day in each year, to visit the schools in their areas and to study what is happening in them. If they did that, they would learn a great deal about what is happening to the fabric of the schools — for example, the lack of painting. Many schools have not had a proper coat of paint for 12 years.
As I have often said, practically all the primary schools have lost their remedial reading teachers. Conservative Members talk about raising standards of education while they cut the opportunities for our children in the state system to learn to read. Our children should be able to go into the secondary schools without being embarrassed by problems that have not been solved because of the lack of remedial teachers.
Standards are bound to suffer, not least because of the Secretary of State's speech in Sheffield. The number of peripatetic music teachers and music instrumentalists, who are so necessary, is being cut. Many teachers have unemployment hovering over them. That is the reality. I accept that falling rolls have given us a better pupil-teacher ratio. The rate at which the Government wanted to sack teachers has been resisted, so they are staying in the schools until, eventually, they leave at the top end. In time, the pupil-teacher ratio will get worse.
Once again, composite classes have been introduced into primary schools—the same classes as we managed to get rid of years ago. There is a large variation within a one-year age group, yet we find that composite classes covering a two-year age group have been reintroduced. Teachers and education administrators fought against that for years. Children are having to share books while the Secretary of State asks teachers to accept a 3 per cent. rise because, if they do not, there will not be sufficient money to buy books. Teachers are being blackmailed. They are being told to ask for less cash so that the remaining funds can be used to buy books. That is a cut in education, and Conservative Members know that. Education standards are sliding, and all the talk of standards becoming better and better will be of no use unless there are sufficient teachers.
I want to compare the lack of proper investment in education with the massive investment in private education. Massive amounts of money are being taken from our children for the assisted places scheme. In those schools, the pupil-teacher ratio——

Mr. Porter: What ratio does the hon. Gentleman want?

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman, among his other mutterings, asks what ratio I want. I want the same ratio in state schools as there is in private schools, where the children of Conservative Members are looked after magnificently with small classes. The classes in the state schools are so large that they present a danger to the education of our children.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East asked a question last February about the assisted places scheme. Most people think that there are only three or four places in each private school. Some private schools are verging on having 50 per cent. of their children in the assisted places scheme. Well over 100 schools have more than 20 per cent. of their children in the assisted places scheme. Money that should be invested in the state system —money from taxpayers, who do not know where their money is going—is being given to an elitist group to strengthen private education at the expense of the education of our children.
We need more investment in education. It is a wonderful area in which to invest. Too much investment is going to private education while there are cuts, cuts and more cuts in the state system. We ask the Secretary of State once again to study his Sheffield speech, and especially the aspect — which he did not develop sufficiently—of money. He must realise that investment in education, even if a little of it is frittered away here and there, is necessary if the fabric of education is to be held together and, I hope, advanced.

Mr. Derek Spencer: I think that I can claim that I have done my bit in Leicester to improve the pupil-teacher ratio. My opponent whom I defeated last June is now teaching in a school in that city. If we had really favoured the private sector at the expense of the public in the way the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has just declared, I cannot think that the 9 June result in Leicester, in which two Conservative Members were returned and his party lost two Members, would have been what it was.
There are important lessons for the Labour party to be drawn from the educational experience in Leicester in the past three or four years. Although that experience comes out of the private sector and has given rise to an increase in the private sector, the lessons are for the public sector as well. It cannot be claimed that Leicester is an area that has been under-resourced from the point of view of public education. In my constituency, where 28 per cent. of my constituents are of Asian origin, there has been a considerable allocation of section 137 money. A number of projects which the local education authority has put forward have taken advantage of the inner area programme. The authority is a known over-spender; it proudly proclaims that it is over-spending. It had 35 more teachers in the past year than it was aware of until the fact was pointed out by the district auditer.
Against that background, is there any glory, reflected or otherwise? Experience suggests not, because there have been two endeavours which give the lie to the claim that allocation of resources is really what education is all about. The first such endeavour is the setting up of the grammar school in Applegate street, starting in 1981. This was set up, in the teeth of the recession, by a group of private individuals. It got hardly any money from industry; it was a charitable trust set up by a number of private individuals. The building that they purchased was a school with a respectable and honoured tradition, which had stood empty since 1980. As a result of their efforts and endeavours, that school, which was formerly the Alderman Newton boys grammar school and before that the Wyggeston boys grammar school, was bought in 1981 for £135,000.
With a loan, the building was rehabilitated, laboratories were put in, and staff were hired. They had the good fortune to get somebody who was meet for the role of waving what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science described as the magic wand —they got a Yorkshire man as headmaster. Already the school has made tremendous progress. It started with 100 children and now has 320. It is expected that in September of this year there will be 400, and ultimately it is planned to have 520. It is so ambitious that it has already applied to join the assisted places scheme. There may be the criticism that that was perhaps an over-ambitious application, but it is one which I hope that in the fullness of time my right hon. Friend will look at favourably.
That is the first lesson for those from less-favoured places to learn from Leicester. Thus I appeal across the Chamber to the hon. Member for Hillsborough, who really ought to come with me to—[Interruption.] We regard this as a serious and important matter and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will treat it accordingly. It is not a matter for levity.
A number of people attached to the Ashfordby street mosque have opened a school above the mosque. In terms of resources, it is about as under-resourced as it would be possible for a school to be. I asked one of the founders of the school what the investment was to start with. The answer was "Nothing". He said that a group of friends and he—all Moslems—clubbed together and put up £150 in the first instance. They bought some tables and chairs and some second hand books. They started with about 30 to 40 girls—because it was intended that this should be a secondary school for Moslem girls—and since then the school has expanded——

Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spencer: Not until I have finished this point.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned me. He should give way.

Mr. Spencer: If the hon. Gentleman does me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say, he may find that his intervention is not necessary and I shall be able to finish more speedily.
There are now 115 children in that school and there are 50 to 60 on the waiting list. The staff numbers 12 and some of the children who attend the school are the children of unemployed people. The subscriptions to the school come in part from the Asian business community of Leicester.
In these two examples — the grammar school in Applegate street and the Moslem girls' school in Ashfordby street—I believe that there is a lesson for the House. Before I give the lesson to the hon. Gentleman, however, I will give him the opportunity for which he asked a few moments ago.

Mr. Flannery: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman really advocating, in 1984, that we go back to the voluntary schools that he has just talked about, that we begin from nothing and set an example? Is that really what he wants us to introduce into the education system?

Mr. Spencer: The burden of my speech is about to come, and in it I shall answer the question which the hon. Gentleman has just put.
The question is: why has it come about that people of different races, different religions, different creeds, in Leicester have felt obliged to resort to self-help of that sort? The answer is—and this is at the heart of this debate — that it is because of the way in which the Labour-controlled education authority has allocated its resources. It has quite deliberately set its face against single-sex schools, knowing that a sizeable section of the community in Leicester, irrespective of race, creed or colour, want them. Whether it be the part of my constituency nearer the country, near the Jonathan North girls school, which is over-subscribed, or nearer to Highfields, which is a predominantly Asian area, the cry is the same—"We want more single-sex provision in this city."
That cry fell on deaf ears in the Labour-controlled local education authority until quite recently when it felt obliged to make a cosmetic response because of political pressure. Its response was only cosmetic, and due to a political change of control in the past week it is no longer in a position to decide the issue. I am confident that a Conservative-controlled education authority will be much more sensitive in its reallocation of resources, to ensure that there is proper provision for single-sex education in Leicester, which is required throughout its scope.
The complaint in Leicester is that the resources which have been available to the local authority have not been used in the way that the people wanted. Resources were made available to it from the inner area programme and by section 137 grants but it has been said by the local people that the authority was not sensitive to its religious and social needs. They say, "You are not sensitive to our requirement for single-sex education." That is why there is an important lesson to be learnt from this experience.

Mr. Freud: Was single-sex education requested in respect of boys or for both boys and girls?

Mr. Spencer: By a process of elimination and by applying the ordinary rules of gender, the hon. Gentleman will find that if one has single-sex education for girls it will follow that there will be single-sex education for boys. There is a demand throughout Leicester for single-sex education for girls and boys once they have reached the secondary stage. There is a lesson to be learnt from that experience in Leicester over the past few years.
Investment in education is so often about items other than money. The argument in Leicester has been about the way in which money is spent and not about the amount that has been available. It is around the allocation of moneys that the argument has raged. It is no good Labour Members mirroring the insensitive approach of their colleagues on Labour-controlled authorities. If they do so they will show themselves to be completely out of touch with the real education requirements of our communities.
Without enterprise, without conviction and without energy, and with the irresolute approach of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, we can expect a lack of progress. However, if we display energy and the attitude to limited resources that has been adopted in Leicester, there is room for a great deal of progress.

Mr. Clement Freud: I shall not take up directly the remarks of the hon. and


learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) because I believe that Leicester has had enough publicity for one day. I wish to commend the Opposition on this, their 12th allotted day, on choosing what is perhaps the most important subject that they have yet chosen for their allocated days of debate. It will be known in the House that my colleagues and I feel badly about the small number of days that are allocated to the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, but I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) on instigating a most important debate.
This is a debate on investment in education, and for that reason it is not just another education debate. I compliment the draftsmen of the motion because there is much within it with which it is hard to disagree. The Secretary of State, who has now left the Chamber, spoke as he so often does about money and the fact that there are bad teachers. He is fond of saying that there is no correlation between additional spending and improved standards. I take his point, but the cost-effective use of more money is better than the cost-effective use of less money.
I am always irritated when the right hon. Gentleman prides himself on the improved pupil-teacher ratio. Much of the improvement was achieved by local education authorities causing their county councils to suffer penalty, and it is wrong to pride oneself on the achievement of something that for which the instigator was punished—by oneself.
When the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) was a Minister at the Department of Education and Science —he is now the Minister for Social Security—he said that he knew teachers who could do a magnificent job of teaching a class of 30 and more children and that he knew other teachers who would have a riot with one dead chicken. He argued that it was therefore more important to concentrate on the quality of the teacher rather than on overall numbers.
In this debate I feel rather like the 91-year-old lady who was recently accused of driving at 15 mph on a motorway when everyone else was driving rather quickly. I understand that this is a debate which will continue until 10 o'clock, but all around me are hon. Members who feel that something unexpected will take place. This debate can continue until 10 o'clock. I trust it will, and I hope that I do not suffer a fate similar to that of the lady of 91, who was arrested and prevented from further driving. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South, I do not feel that there are any restrictions on me. He told us that it was a short debate and that he had to move without delay from one topic to another.
I shall move gently and begin by talking about political education. I remind the Secretary of State, who was worried recently about peace studies, of the Thompson report on youth services, which was shelved through lack of investment. The report stated that just as there are social skills which enable one to feel at home in society so are there political skills which enable one to change the system or to keep it as it is if someone else is trying to change it. The report expressed a need for a level of political literacy. I would want to know more——

Mr. Edward Leigh: rose——

Mr. Freud: I shall not give way because this is a long debate and the hon. Member for Gainsborough and

Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will have plenty of time to advance his own arguments in his own speech. I shall give way to anyone who has already spoken because it will be fair to do so. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in catching the eye of the occupant of the Chair. He has four hours and 11 minutes in which to do so.
Much of the political education in schools is passive and informative. I am not deeply concerned, as is the Secretary of State, about uneven political input because schools have boards of management and boards of governors, and, for better or worse these still bear party political representation.
I should like political teaching to take place in schools. I know that it may not be even, but the one benefit of local authorities' appointing governors and managers to boards is that they can monitor the even-handed input.
All hon. Members must have been saddened at the statistics relating to the last election. The estimated turnout of 18-year-olds was under 60 per cent. Those young people had been looking forward to their first vote for three years, but only six out of 10 exercised their right to vote. About 25 per cent. of 18-year-olds were not registered. In the second year only half of that 25 per cent. registered, and they probably registered, not because of their deep desire to vote, but because they realised that they would not receive the junk mail that one receives if one is on the electoral register and that they might miss out. It was that, rather than political awareness, that made the figures look better.
I send 18th birthday letters to all constituents of that age on the electoral register. Frequently someone complains that they did not receive a birthday letter when all their friends did. I have to say, "That is because your parents forgot to put you on the electoral register." It ill becomes us as politicians to do so little about the instruction of young people in their political rights.
Many of us, especially hon. Members who sat on the Committee to consider the Education Act 1981, are concerned about the non-implementation of recommendations in the Warnock report. All that the Act has done is to enshrine in law the definition of special needs. Catering for the needs of the 18 per cent. who have chronic learning disabilities on top of the 2 per cent. who are handicapped requires substantial investment. We are debating investment today.
The problem is extraordinarily difficult. Dyslexia is a huge grey area. All hon. Members will have been asked by a constituent what is being done about a particular dyslexic child. I listened to the Secretary of State with care. It is right to say that a good teacher with a big class could take one or two more pupils and so release another teacher to handle remedial education.
Perhaps I am most unhappy about the mentally handicapped 16 to 19-year-olds. There is no statutory provision in education for them. Some local authorities look after that age group. I hope that statutory provision will not stop at the age of 16, but will be stretched to include the 19-year-olds.
Mrs. Warnock, as she then was, expressed a fear that local authorities would use what she said in her report to save money. She said that she was frightened that her recommendations would allow handicapped children to be integrated into schools when insufficient money or resources were available to teach them as they should be taught. Her fears have been realised.
I know of many children, because people write to me about them, who have been integrated in a normal school. They are pushed into the dining room in a wheelchair and receive only one or two hours' education a day. For the rest of the time they have to amuse themselves. That is where I should like the investment to be made.
Hon. Members have referred to the assisted places scheme, which I have mentioned on a number of occasions. About £16·5 million has been invested in that scheme and it is spent on a small group of children in the private sector of education. The public sector could do with that amount of money, small though it is.
I represent a rural constituency and I have been worried, recently more than previously, about the closure of village schools. I am now persuaded that in some cases the closure of small village schools is right. The principle of keeping a school for the sake of it, which was Liberal policy, must be re-examined. There are disadvantages in a school with few pupils and therefore few teachers.
But closures should be examined on educational rather than party political grounds. I am delighted to see the Secretary of State nod his head. Closure must be granted only after full consultation with the local community. On a number of occasions, but not to an occupant of the present Front Bench, I have taken constituents to Ministers. They may have spent weeks or months working on their presentation. They bring along children and present letters from parents and governors, and samples of work. I have been sad at the perfunctory way that Ministers behave. I have heard them say that that is the second or third such case in a week. I do not accuse anyone presently on the Government Front Bench, but that is my experience of the attitude in the Department. It has made me apologise to my constituents.

Sir Keith Joseph: I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) often receives letters of thanks for the courtesy and care with which he has heard a case by a delegation. Even I have been known to receive such letters. We certainly do not treat such cases perfunctorily. I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), will be courteous enough to send us any such complaints at once so that if we have been in error we may learn.
If the hon. Gentleman hears that a disabled child has been put into a normal school and has not been treated adequately in the parents' view I hope that he will send the details to a Minister in the Department—not publishing it of course—so that if we think that we can help in any way we can look into the case. I cannot promise that any of us can make things right. There can be differences of opinion, but we should like to know of any such cases.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention. I made very clear to his predecessors my dissatisfaction with the treatment accorded to the village school representatives whom I brought to the Department, but I repeat that none of the present occupants of the Front Bench was party to that.
On the second point, the whole House will be grateful. I do not believe that anyone would publish the names or case histories of handicapped people. In this debate on investment in education, I am saying quite simply that there is a duty which local education authorities are sometimes unable to execute due to lack of investment. I

shall certainly write to the Department next time I hear of such a case. The Secretary of State will agree, however, that there is an inherent lack of finance which makes it impossible, unless parents are able to help out, to find the right people to spend sufficient time on the children who came into the schools as a result of the 1981 Act.
Returning to village schools, the Government should encourage local education authorities to take advantage of falling pupil numbers not by penalising the authorities but by encouraging them to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio, to make better equipment provision and to increase nursery provision. I accept that closures will sometimes be necessary for educational and even for financial reasons, but it must not be party political, motivation should be paramount, and full public consultation should take place before any decision is reached.
One of the greatest evils when small schools are threatened is assassination by rumour. Someone has only to mention that a school may be at risk for parents of two, three and four-year-olds to decide to send their children elsewhere. The numbers in the threatened school then fall and the education authority closes it. Too often, education officers and members of the controlling political group consult the public only after they have made up their own minds about what should be done. Consultation must be genuine and it must be seen to be genuine.
Falling rolls should provide an opportunity for greater investment in 16-plus teaching and in general community use of schools. I am privileged to represent a county which pioneered the village school concept, which I am sure is close to the Secretary of State's heart. Such a school was not open just for so many hours per day, so many days per week and so many weeks per year. It was part of the community. The Women's Institute met there. The sports club met there, and the only playing field in the town or village was maintained by the school for the community. I support that concept and it should be borne in mind when one considers the current fall in numbers which in due course will be reversed. I know that it is easy, perhaps even essential, when in Government to relate pupil numbers to teacher numbers. Bearing in mind the needs of the community, however, the few years of declining birth rate and thus fewer pupils provides a tremendous opportunity to prepare the schools of this country for the influx that will follow. The graphs show that there will be fewer pupils for five or six years and that the numbers will then return to present levels. When closures are contemplated they should be treated as a challenge and considered in the light of community—not just youth—need. By the year 2000, 16-plus and adult courses could well be integrated into the schools. I mind education that looks too closely ahead. It should gear itself not just to the next election or the next 10 years but at least to the end of the century.
Finally, I make a plea to the House. We must fight the philistine approach to education whereby young people are trained for employment without necessarily developing their full potential in other areas. That is perhaps where I feel most at odds with this Government's policies.

Mr. George Walden: I am tempted to follow the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) on the subject of village schools, as I share his interest and solicitude, but I feel that I should take a wider view as we are debating matters affecting the


country as a whole. I echo the hon. Gentleman's congratulations to the Opposition on devoting half a Supply day to this subject and I share his gratitude for that, although I am a little suspicious about the motives of the Opposition as they sometimes seem less interested in education than in agitation.
Some Conservative Members suspect that some Opposition Members are Marxists. I believe that that is sometimes rather a charitable view as, although Marxists are wrong, they are rigorously wrong. So often what is lacking among the Opposition is any kind of rigour. Instead, we have a kind of vulgar Marxism. That is not intended to be discourteous in any way. Marxists are very rich in the vocabulary of abuse and I borrow the expression from them. That is germane to the debate because vulgar Marxists think in simplistic, materialist terms about issues such as education. They believe that economics is everything and they take a crude, simple, economic view of Marx.
Let us suppose for a moment that not all Opposition Members are Marxists. Let us assume that some of them are Socialists. That, too, is germane to the debate as one of the most impressive Socialists in Europe now is President Mitterrand of France. Unlike the Opposition, he does not worry about the need for a lick of paint on some of the schools. He makes unprecedented announcements from the Elyséee about the need to improve the quality of education and specifically historical education in France. I find that courageous and impressive, be he a Socialist or otherwise. The Opposition have a great deal to learn from other Socialists in Europe, who are concerned more about quality than about the condition of the paintwork.
I do not wish to sound dogmatic in my turn. Economics matters. Money clearly matters. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who led for the Opposition, made an important point when he referred to the recent publication of the Government's Green Paper on priorities in public spending and taxation. Much has been said about books in today's debate. The Green Paper is a very important book and is far more readable than many people think. It shows that we now have a Government with the courage and foresight to look ahead and to consult the people of this country about priorities. It is well worth reading. It also shows that we have the first Government in decades to have a coherent economic policy.
I go further. To some extent I support what the hon. Member for Durham, North implied about the need to consider priorities overall. Like all hon. Members, I can see the problems in education in my constituency. I know where I should like more money to be spent and I can see where a lick of paint would be useful. At the back of my mind, however, is the Green Paper. I believe that we are right to be rigorous in education.
We can explain that to people in this country only if we are rigorous in other areas. We must be rigorous in our defence spending. In that context, I welcome the recent measures of the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that he gets value for money too. We must be rigorous in regard to Europe—thank goodness, thanks to the efforts of the Prime Minister, we are—and in regard to the Health Service. In all those areas, we are seeking quality and value for money. We are not hard-faced. We are being sensible, because we have a coherent economic policy.
To that extent, I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Durham, North. The Government must be careful in presenting our policies on education, and must

make it clear that we are not singling education out for harsh treatment but that what we are doing is part of a coherent pattern. The problem is often a one of emphasis and communication. It is not unreasonable, when we are spending more per pupil than every before, to ask for a reasonable return on that investment. It is not reasonable to ask the taxpayer to cough up £14 billion and expect him to ask no questions. It would be odd if other major public spenders, such as the military, took that attitude but is one that, as a relative newcomer to the world of education, I often encounter.
Parents know what is important, even if some Opposition Members do not. When parents express anxiety about education, they are anxious — in my experience—not about money, but about standards of discipline, and quality of teachers. The real investment in education is not to be measured only in terms of money but in terms of higher standards. Real investment is investment in better teachers. Real investment in the future means getting away from the tired old egalitarianism of the past and into something much more dynamic and realistic. I do not want to indulge in too much party polemic—although there is a place for it. Education is too important for that.
So far, the debate has concentrated too much on money and statistics. We all know that the real problems lie elsewhere. The Opposition sometimes suggest that money is a substitute for individual effort and excellence. That attitude could do real damage. We would be fooling people if we led them to believe that there were so.
I wish to make two concrete points. First, both sides of the House will agree about the importance of the quality of the teachers. One does not have to be a Marxist to recognise there is a link between quality and financial incentive. I am glad that ways are being sought to reward the most competent teachers and to give them some hopes for their future careers and some recognition in terms of pay.
Those ideas may not be welcome in those quarters of the teaching establishment where competition in any form — whether between pupils or between teachers — is suspect, but I hope that the Secretary of State will not allow that hostility to hold up progress on that front. I recognise that there may be financial problems, but, thanks to our coherent economic strategy, there may be a little bit more to be spent at the margins in the next few years. I hope that it will be spent on the quality of education and of teaching. I would leave the paintwork for a year or two more. I am not opposed to paying teachers more, but the structure of the teaching profession could be dynamised in other ways, and the extra money could be used as an incentive.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the quality of teachers. We all want to improve that quality. However, it is fairly easy to agree about the difference between an excellent teacher and a hopeless teacher, who should not be in the classroom at all. It is much more difficult to differentiate between average teachers. That could lead to divisions within the profession. Also, one should remember that some children relate to one person and some to another, and that someone who is not a good teacher for certain pupils may be excellent for others.

Mr. Walden: I recognise those problems. The area is a complex one. However, the existence of those problems, which is not in doubt, should not be used as an excuse for inactivity.
Secondly, we are now rightly emphasising technology and science. For reasons that I do not have to spell out, this is an essential new development and is in the interests not only of the country but of the future of education. However, I am worried about the exclusive terms in which the Secretary of State's recent speeches on this theme seem to be interpreted in some parts of the education world. the new emphasis is a corrective stress. It is not a takeover bid by science against the arts. We do not have to make a simple choice between arts and sciences, but there may be conflicts about time, energy or resources, and as a newcomer to the world of education, perhaps I may be allowed to suggest a simplistic solution. One solution may lie in greater individual effort by the teacher and the pupil, or, in other words, in the theme of increased expectations which sums up what is vital in education today.
I recently hazarded to some senior educationalists the suggestion that a little more homework might be called for to cover any conflict between the arts and sciences. It might cut into the three and a quarter hours that the average child spends watching television, but such a sacrifice is, perhaps, to be encouraged by teachers and parents. The reaction to my suggestion was one of shocked surprise. Clearly I had touched on an educational taboo. There are many such taboos. I was therefore glad to read, by chance, a letter in The Times the next day from Dr. Rice-Evans. I do not know Dr. Rice-Evans, and I did not put him up to it. He said, in talking about the need for
a wider sixth form curriculum",
that we might
require all university candidates to offer five A level subjects (at their present standard), three in their mainstream and two to broaden their horizons. Thus a potential scientist might take, say, Latin and economics in addition to three sciences".
Dr. Rice-Evans continued:
To achieve this an accelerated and more demanding pace would be required throughout a pupil's school career, but especially in the primary schools which now compare so unfavourably with preparatory schools.
That may be a terrible thing to say, but we must put aside all class inhibitions and recognise that it is more than likely to be true.
Finally, I should like to summarise the Government's position, as I understand it. The Government are asking for better standards from fewer children with the same amount of money. That seems to me to be an eminently reasonable demand. I am sure that parents will not be scared into taking a different view by the vulgar Marxists on the Labour Benches.

Mr. Sean Hughes: Conservative Members often refer to politics as the art of the possible, wrongly attributing the term to Rab Butler, but I wish that the Government would realise what is possible. Instead, they seem to be obsessed with the idea that public expenditure is evil and must be curbed. I happen to believe that "public expenditure" are not dirty words. That is not to say that I believe that throwing money at a problem solves it, but some problems cannot be solved without money. It makes sense to spend money on educating people to develop their talents and skills, not just to develop talents which can be harnessed for the benefit of

the national economy but to enable people to become rational and civilised human beings. It worries me that in education debates we become so bogged down in the minutae of economic jargon that we sometimes miss the argument.
I can produce statistics to prove that less money is being spent on educating children in areas such as mine, which suffer from acute deprivation. The education budget in my borough has been reduced. Next year Knowsley will spend £52,500 less on 16 to 19-year-olds in non-advanced further education; that is a reduction of 18·5 per cent. in cash terms, or 23·5 per cent. in real terms. The total net expenditure on education will increase by £363,600, which is a 0·5 per cent. increase in cash terms but a 4 per cent. reduction in real terms. There will be a reduction of 6·7 per cent. in cash terns on equipment, tools and materials in secondary education, which is an 11 per cent. reducion in real terms. All this comes about because the borough forecasts that there will be no increase in the percentage of income funded by Government grants, because teachers' and staff wages will not be increased and because the authority will spend less on administration, supplies and equipment.
In any civilised society, we must begin with some shared assumptions. It is a common goal that everyone should be allowed to enjoy what a civilised society accepts as the finer experiences of life. Hon. Members will accept the importance of reading. I recall that the Bullock report stressed that the ability to read was crucial, not just because we have become a society of form-fillers but because the inability to read seriously impinges on the freedom of the individual. Had Lord Bullock visited my constituency, he would have found an entire culture based on form-filling. Since many of my constituents depend on benefits, they must wade their way through a series of obstacles that would make the Grand National look like a flat race.

Sir Keith Joseph: I ask this question entirely neutrally, since I do not know the answer. Is the number of children in Knowsley increasing or decreasing? If we knew that, we could make a better judgment about the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave.

Mr. Hughes: The number of children is decreasing, but that does not weaken my point.
The ability to read, scan and precis is not a luxury in my constituency but a prerequisite for survival. However, the twist as usual is that we have greater problems in that area than in most others because the stark, unchallengeable, fact is that millions of children in one of the most advanced and civilised societies in the world never read books outside of school. The rich variety of experience, as well as the sheer pleasure to be derived from literature, is denied to many, yet we blithely accept suggestions which show that on the altar of public expenditure cuts the promotion of reading will be sacrificed. In view of the time limit, I shall produce no more statistics to prove that that is happening, but this year Knowsley would have to spend 19·3 per cent. more on equipment than it did in 1979 just to keep up.
Conservative Members may produce statistics to try to show that matters are not that bad. However, I spent 12 years teaching in a large comprehensive school and I can tell the House that there were not enough books to go round. The idea that every child has a textbook in his desk


or satchel for every subject is not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said. When I was head of a history department, I could not allow more than one class in one year to take home textbooks. We did not have enough books to allow three classes to use them in the same year. That is what is happening in our least prosperous areas. That is what the percentages mean and that is the problem that the Government are exacerbating.
I appreciate that elections will not be won on manifesto commitments to increase literacy, but I believe that it is a crime to deny people the tools to develop their reading ability. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) to talk about quality in education and to call for a return to basic standards. Nothing is more basic in a civilised society than the ability to read. but the Government's plans will do nothing to encourage its development. That is why I hope that the House will support the Opposition motion.

Mr. David Model: I wish to welcome some recent events in education which run counter to much of what has been said by Opposition Members. The first event is the 350 new posts created in universities, which will come into effect this October. Adding the new posts that were created last October, there will now be 592 new posts mainly in the sciences, but not entirely, which will benefit industry and universities. More are to follow. Secondly, I welcome the announcement that new posts will be created in information technology. That is good for the universities and polytechnics, and I hope that it will mean closer liaisons between the two, possibly leading to mergers of some institutions.
I also welcome the increase in funds to the adult literacy and basic skills unit. By 1986–87 the provisions will have increased to £2 million, and I especially welcome the fact that the unit can now sponsor local development projects and can give small grants to help the establishment of voluntary organisations. I admit that the unit asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for more funds, but in his letter of 6 March he said that beyond 1985 it was impossible to provide the level of financial support for which the unit asked. However, the increase shows the Government's commitment to improving education. If in 1985–86 unemployment is as high as it is now, the Government appear not to have closed the door to increased funding in that area.
Thirdly, I welcome the fact that in-service training grants will be extended to further education teachers who will take part in the youth training scheme as it moves into its second phase in September. If we can provide better qualified further education teachers, we must then ask whether more youngsters will enter colleges for the YTS this September. I believe that they will. If that happens, I hope we can iron out possible problems of local authority spending on this project and the whole question of rate support grant.
Following on from that, there are now in-service training grants for schoolteachers and for further education teachers. The next natural step, which I hope the Government will take, is to have in-service grants for lecturer retraining and training in universities.
The recent decision by the Department to let polytechnics and local authority further education

institutions sell their expertise on a commercial basis is very welcome, because it will improve not only the links of those institutions with local industry but also their funding. The important point is that the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development report said that any proceeds accruing to institutions should remain with them and not be offset by clawback arrangements. In some areas polytechnics and colleges of further education will be able to sell much of their research and thereby generate funds. I hope that, because some are doing well, their funds will not get tangled up in rate support grant calculations and that local authorities will not suffer because they have generated so many funds from polytechnics and colleges following the Government's welcome decision to let them go into this sphere.
I want to say just a word about capital and equipment spending. The Government have said that there is a 5 per cent. increase in equipment grants for universities in 1984–85 compared with 1983–84. That immediately raises the parallel question of the amount that may be spent in schools on books and equipment. Much of this is often tied up with the removal of surplus places. Some local education authorities may say that they could generate income by allowing surplus places to be used for other activities out of school hours. It is not beyond the wit of LEAs to do that. Bearing in mind the fact that the Manpower Services Commission and colleges of further education could probably make use of the surplus places, local education authorities should satisfy themselves and the Government that they are not being inactive about the problem of surplus places and that they are generating income which could be put to good educational use.
In relation to the Green Paper, Cmnd. 9189, there should be more co-operation between the CBI and the TUC to get people who are leaving industry to go into teaching. We must urgently consider support for people who go on accredited courses while they are unemployed and who may render themselves disqualified for some supplementary benefit. Industry should be allowed the same sort of tax relief if it funds university development as is available in the United States and Europe.
On future education spending, the Green Paper says:
There will be pressure for a further increase in the participation of under-fives, though it is currently at a record level of 40 per cent.
In their compulsory school years children should have access to the most modern teaching techniques and to the best teaching possible. What the Government have recently done shows that they are working towards that. When considering what we should do in relation to the Green Paper, we should remember that, vital though preschool provision is, it is the compulsory years that are most vital. By funding better in-service teacher training and the use of microcomputers in schools, the Government are giving an absolute commitment to raising teacher quality and educational opportunities.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Opposition motion expresses a view about
educational provision in many parts of the country
and refers to the future of the nation. Therefore, it goes wider than education in Great Britain. The curbs are designed to have an effect on the whole of the United Kingdom.
The general effects have been dealt with by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), speaking for the


Opposition, and by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has put the Government's case in his customary civilised manner. I was disappointed that neither of them, admittedly in the short time at their disposal, dealt with student grants. However, I trust that the Secretary of State and his Department will take account of what has been said about this aspect of the Budget in the debate. The likely changes in the payments of student travel expenses are of perhaps the greatest concern to two categories, first, students from Northern Ireland attending English universities, and secondly, students from England and Wales attending Northern Ireland universities.

Mr. Radice: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that at Question Time student travel grants were referred to by me and that my question was answered then by the Minister?

Mr. Molyneaux: I appreciate that and I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting it on record.
In regard to the first category that I have mentioned, many Ulster students have to study at universities in Great Britain because their chosen courses are not available in Northern Ireland. That is understandable when one recognises that, excellent though they are, our two Northern Ireland universities cannot be expected to offer a range of courses comparable with those available at national level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) has been conducting correspondence and making representations on behalf of this category of Ulster students to the Northern Ireland Office Minister responsible for education, pointing out that a Hate rate travel allowance would be grossly unfair to those students who have to make even limited journeys by air and sea to Northern Ireland. In a letter the Northern Ireland Minister has made the astonishing statement that the Government propose to be guided by the principle of parity — not parity with Scotland, but parity with England and Wales. In Scotland, of course, conditions much more closely resemble those affecting Ulster students. The Minister, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), went on to admit frankly that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had indicated that he had no intention of making the corresponding changes in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Education and Science may say that the problem I have described is one for his relevant colleague in Northern Ireland. Even if that is the case, I trust that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will recognise the injustice of the Government opting for parity with England and Wales rather than with Scotland.
The Secretary of State will not, I know, seek to divest himself of responsibility for the second category to which I referred, students from Great Britain attending universities in Northern Ireland. I champion their cause because Northern Ireland people welcome the contribution of these young people to the vitality of our university life. The significance and scale of that can ge gauged from the fact that one third of the students attending the New University of Ulster come from Great Britain. The cross-fertilisation of ideas has been of great benefit to all students from the component parts of the United Kingdom. It cannot continue if travel expenses are to be pegged at what is probably an inadequate flat rate for even England and Wales. Government Departments must think again.
The Ulster Unionist party broadly supports the Conservative ethos of freedom of choice. Two important categories of students will be deprived of the right of freedom of choice, the right to attend the university of their choice and the right to engage in the course of their choice. They are likely to be compelled to restrict their choice to a university to which they can afford to travel if the flat rate travel allowance is adopted.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I regret to have to rise at this time, so curtailing the debate, for I appreciate that many hon. Members who have sat throughout the discussion will not have an opportunity to speak.
It has been a well-informed and interesting debate. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State gave a disappointing response to our call for a discussion on investment in education, the need to expand education and talk about the future. One wonders what future the right hon. Gentleman sees for education or, for that matter, for himself as Secretary of State. It would have been nice if he had spoken more about the future and less about the past.
It would also have been nice if the right hon. Gentleman had spent some time discussing the morale of many of those who work in education. He must be aware that in the universities, polytechnics and higher education colleges there is much concern about jobs; a great deal of time is being taken up by people talking about their future employment prospects rather than with getting on with research or teaching. The same is now true of further education, where Training for Jobs has caused much despondency and concern.
Throughout our schools, right through to the nursery level, we see the same picture. Among elected representatives on education committees, administrators, teachers, students and parents there is a considerable loss of morale. The right hon. Gentleman might have spent more time endeavouring to raise morale and enthusiasm.
The Secretary of State seemed to go back to doing what spoils this House on too many occasions, the "yah boo" of what one party or another did when in government. That was unfortunate, because while I accept that the Government are spending more on education than was spent at the time of the last Labour Government, that should be the case, considering, for example, the oil revenues that are now available. The real test is whether either party spent enough.
Considering the number of people who are still totally illiterate, the under-achievement of many girls in the sciences, the shortage of skilled people for the microelectronics industry, and youngsters who are inarticulate and lacking in confidence, I fear that we have not achieved enough in education, either in terms of spending or quality. We must give young people confidence from education not only to cope with the world but to do well in it, and too many of them lack that confidence.
We must, therefore, accept that we have not done as well as we might and that to compare the performance of one party with another is not a useful exercise. Whatever we in this House say and however we vote, we will not change history. Our aim in this debate should be to talk about investment in education for the future.
In their amendment, the Government talk with pride about the number of under-fives in nursery education. That


is an excellent achievement and we hope that it will be maintained, particularly as the number of under-fives increases. May we have a categorical assurance that the Government plan to maintain the proportion of under-fives in nursery schools?
The amendment also refers to the lower pupil-teacher ratio, and we are pleased about that. However, we are not certain whether that has occurred through Government planning or by accident. In their previous White Papers, they were looking for a higher pupil-teacher ratio than was achieved, so the credit must go to the local authorities.
The same applies to participation in higher education. Naturally, we are pleased that more people are going on to universities and polytechnics, but how much credit the Government can take for that is questionable. After all, they proposed cuts, originally of one in six, in staffing in universities and in the number of pupils at the university level.
In other words, the Government must be careful when making claims for their achievements in education. The improvements seem to have happened more by accident than by design. Perhaps the Government should have added to their amendment words to the effect that they have increased investment in unemployment far more than they have increased investment in education.
Although the Secretary of State said that the Government were doing well on the pupil-teacher ratio front, I suggest that they will be doing well when they have achieved the same pupil-teacher ratio in state schools as is enjoyed in the independent schools and the schools to which the Government are keen to give assistance. If it is good enough for the independents, why is it not good for state schools?
The Government must also address their mind, on the pupil-teacher ratio question, to the way in which we managed to tunnel through the bulge and make economies of scale at that point. In other words, we cannot make economies of scale as the system contracts. For example, the Secretary of State must face up to the problem of village schools. Many of them do an excellent job and nobody would want to close them. But if the number of pupils in a school drops from, say, 40 to 30, that gives a nice reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio, but if we wish to even out the ratio across the country, we must face up to the problem of closing schools and inflicting a bitter blow on many local communities.

Mr. Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give the PTR figure for independent schools? I have never seen it.

Mr. Bennett: It is about 10 per cent. better than in state schools. I shall check the accuracy of that and write to the hon. Gentleman.
The country can afford to invest more in education, for example from the oil revenues. On what are we spending the oil revenue at present? It would not be too bad if it were going on investment in British industry, but much of it is being invested abroad in industries which send goods to compete with our goods and destroy jobs in Britain. We should be investing some of that money in people and skills for the community.
Let us consider how much the Government spend on defence. They are even now talking about dramatically increasing expenditure on armaments. There are threats to this country, not necessarily from military invasion but from economic and cultural pressures. We need not be

invaded to become economic or intellectual serfs. It is important to defend the nation not only with arms but by spending on education to ensure that we secure the intellect and skills to safeguard our position in the world.
The Government have great enthusiasm for consumer spending, and the latest consumer boom is in computers. One need only look through the newspapers to see the pressures that are being placed on households of average and above-average earnings to buy computers. It might be better for much of that money to be spent in schools so that all children have the experience and benefit of using computers.
For all those reasons, we should have heard from the Secretary of State how he is fighting to get more spent on education. The Government must show a willingness to secure a climate which generates enthusiasm for education. They should sing the praises of all those in education. It is right to point out that standards are rising in schools. The right hon. Gentleman should go out of his way to praise those in education who have done, and are doing, a good job. For example, many people in our universities and polytechnics are doing excellent research.
I have been delighted by the excellent work that I have seen in the schools that I have visited in recent months. Last Friday in Oldham I visited the Freehold community school and was delighted to see the excitement and enthusiasm there among all concerned. I urge Ministers to show more enthusiasm for the quality of education in Britain and to praise those who are doing well. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will speak of those areas where he sees educational success, because I fear that too often he sells education short in harking back to the old grammar schools.
The Secretary of State spoke firmly about wanting to expand technical and vocational education from the pilot schemes into all the schools. Will he explain where the money is to come from? Is it allowed for in the public expenditure White Paper? If not, where will it be found?
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) raised the question of travel grants and spoke of the difficulty—which does not seem to have occurred to the Government — that, if we are to have different regulations for Scotland and possibly for Northern Ireland, anomalies will arise. For example, we could find two students both staying at a university in England, one coming from Scotland or Northern Ireland and the other from England, coming under totally different travel regulations. Although they will make the same daily journey, one will have additional money in his grant while the other will not.
I should have liked the Government to use a little of their time to open up the great debate on higher education, but all the Government's projections have referred to the fall in student numbers over the next 20 years. They have not told us about the demands of society in the next 20 years, or how many people will be required in industry and the public sector, or how many graduates will be required from the universities. I wish that the Government would change the debate and, instead of asking what will be the demands of 18-year-olds, consider the demands of our society.
I firmly believe that the country's future depends on our having more people with higher educational skills, so I plead with the Minister, in the short time available, to consider the questions asked by the UGC and the National


Advisory Body and say, "We want to have a debate with industry about our manpower requirements for the next 20 years."
I wanted to raise many other matters, but I shall briefly ask the Government only what they will do about educational maintenance awards. For a long time, the Government said that that was a matter for the local authorities. Some local authorities have given educational maintenance allowances, but they are now in great difficulty. If they wish to increase the payments to keep pace with inflation, they are caught by the social security regulations, which make it impossible for them to do so. I hope that the Government will take that into account.
Fewer people stay on at school, perhaps because of the attractions of the youth training scheme. Last September, about 4 per cent. fewer pupils stayed on at school. I hope that the Government will take a fresh look at educational maintenance allowances to make sure that all those who would benefit from staying on at school take that opportunity.
I want to take up several other issues if there is time but, first, I shall ask what the Government will do about the examination system, which is yet another area in which the morale of teachers has suffered. When I finished teaching in the 1970s, experiments were being carried out with the 16-plus examination, which was designed to be a common examination to be taken by all pupils of that age group. Now, most youngsters are asked to choose at the age of 14 whether to take an O-level, a 16-plus or a CSE course. Minister after Minister has put off the decision. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State put it off once again in his Sheffield speech. He talked about absolute standards. It may be desirable to introduce them, but it is more important that the Secretary of State should introduce a single 16-plus examination, which would avoid the problem for both pupils and teachers in having to decide which examination to take. I very much regret that the Government did not pay more attention in the debate to the future needs of the country to invest in education.
The people have a right to a decent education, but the strength of that right lies not in justice and fair play but in its correspondence to the country's need to maximise the abilities, skills and intellect of all our people, so that we can pay our way and defend our values and beliefs in the world. Education is not a luxury, but an economic and cultural necessity. I wish that the Government would start to invest in our future—in education.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): As I listened to the contributions from the Opposition Benches this afternoon I was confirmed in a belief that I have held for some time — we in the Conservative party have succeeded in wresting from the left-wing educational establishment the forward thrust of educational ideas and concepts.
I remember that, during the Committee stage of the Education (Grants and Awards) Bill, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) threatened us with an Opposition Supply day at every meeting. We challenged that but we have ended up, despite the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), with only half a day's debate. The contributions that we have heard——

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an Opposition Supply day, not a half day—is it not?

Mr. Speaker: I am tempted to say, "So what?" What does the hon. Gentleman's point of order have to do with the debate?

Mr. Dunn: What we heard from the hon. Gentleman for Durham, North were not revelations about the Labour party's plans for education or expenditure levels. We have heard nothing except criticism and newspaper headlines, without the substance beneath them. The hon. Gentleman has come to the Chamber naked and is effectively indecent in his lack of educational probing, which would have been of interest to the House and the country.
The hon. Gentleman said that education was vital for social mobility and to overcome the problems of those with a disadvantaged background. From what we know of what the Labour party would do when in power, that would not be the result of their policies. We know that they would abandon and destroy the assisted places scheme, independent schools, grammar schools, parental choice, church schools and a whole range of existing alternative provisions. The hon. Gentleman was careful to distance himself from the Socialist Education Association of which he was a liberal member——

Mr. Radice: I am a member of that association.

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman still sought to distance himself from its conclusions about the future of church schools.
We heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) how a future Labour Government would abolish the voluntary aided and the voluntary controlled schools, as well as the independent sector.

Mr. Flannery: I did not say such a thing.

Mr. Dun: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but if he did not say it today he has said it before. The Government still await the unveiling of the Labour party's Model T Ford. All that we know is that they will seek to destroy our excellent opportunities for disadvantaged children. We believe wholeheartedly that we are the party of excellence in education. Labour is the party of mediocrity and the total destruction of parental choice.
A great deal has been said today about economics and educational expenditure. I commend to the Labour party the need to investigate expenditure at every level, as approved by all education authorities. If if is necessary to save money, in the light of political and other constraints under which all authorities operate, they must consider ways of doing so. Why should not Durham county council consider the possibility of privatising more of their services, or some of them? Why should not Sheffield do precisely the same?

Mr. Flannery: The Minister should be careful this time.

Mr. Dunn: I am always careful when I speak to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the House rather likes him.

Mr. Flannery: It does not.

Mr. Dunn: When, in the 1970s, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), started the great debate on education, there was one big bang and then there was


silence. Since the election of our Government we have seen a progression towards improvement and a better profile for teachers. I accept that many teachers do a superb job. Of course, many do not. We shall continue to insist that standards improve and that a better result for expenditure is the outcome——

Mr. John McWilliam: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us whether there is any precedent for the Opposition, having chosen a subject of major interest and importance for an Opposition day, seeking to move the closure to curtail the debate? They have not done so to ensure that a vote takes place in the closing minutes of the debate, but have done so when less than half of the time for the debate has expired. Is it not unreasonable for the Leader of the Opposition to ask you to accept the closure and to ask the House to decide on it merely to ensure that time that would have been available to Opposition Members to debate education is given to the Government for a subject of their choosing?

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman correctly says, it is an Opposition day. If the Opposition choose to invite the House to decide whether there should be a closure of the debate, that is entirely a matter for them.

Mr. Michael Mates(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help us? What are we to do when we cannot get into the Lobby? The doorway at the far end of the Chamber was crammed. There was a queue 10 deep. I went to the door by your Chair and then you announced that the doors were to be locked. I have been prevented from voting.

Mr. Speaker: I am extremely sorry for the hon. Gentleman, but the doors are locked after eight minutes and unhappily the hon. Gentleman has been unable to vote.

Mr. Mates (seated and covered): But, Mr. Speaker, there must be a procedure by which those who are trying to get into the Lobby are allowed in.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman were to get into the Chamber a little earlier, he would not find himself locked out.

Mr. Beith (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), I hope that you will he understanding of the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, which was genuine, and which, I think, arose because, for the fourth time in two days, Labour and Conservative Members were trying to go into the same Lobby at the same time. [Interruption.] I wonder whether, in the circumstances, you might extend the Division.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear the last comment.

Mr. Beith (seated and covered): I asked whether, in the circumstances, exercising your discretion, and in view of the fact that having both Labour and Conservative Members in the same Lobby creates congestion, you might extend the Division on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker: I do not honestly think that that will be necessary.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If it is to become a regular occurrence for members of the Government party and members of the Labour party to vote together in Divisions, would you in your discretion consider appointing additional tellers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that that seems to be a rather frivolous point of order.

The House having divided: Ayes 481, Noes 17.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Division No. 221]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bruinvels, Peter


Adley, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Buchan, Norman


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Budgen, Nick


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Ancram, Michael
Butcher, John


Anderson, Donald
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom
Caborn, Richard


Ashby, David
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ian


Aspinwall, Jack
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Canavan, Dennis


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Chope, Christopher


Barnett, Guy
Churchill, W. S.


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Thomas


Bendall, Vivian
Clay, Robert


Benn, Tony
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cockeram, Eric


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Benyon, William
Cohen, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Coleman, Donald


Berry, Sir Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Bidwell, Sydney
Conlan, Bernard


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Conway, Derek


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Blair, Anthony
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Simon


Body, Richard
Cope, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Corbett, Robin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Corrie, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Cowans, Harry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Boyes, Roland
Craigen, J. M.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cranborne, Viscount


Braine, Sir Bernard
Critchley, Julian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Crouch, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crowther, Stan


Bright, Graham
Cunningham, Dr John


Brinton, Tim
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Deakins, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dormand, Jack






Dorrell, Stephen
Henderson, Barry


Douglas, Dick
Hicks, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Dover, Den
Hill, James


Dubs, Alfred
Hind, Kenneth


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hirst, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dunn, Robert
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Home Robertson, John


Durant, Tony
Hooson, Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Hordern, Peter


Eadie, Alex
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Eastham, Ken
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Eggar, Tim
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Ellis, Raymond
Hoyle, Douglas


Emery, Sir Peter
Hughes, Dr, Mark (Durham)


Ewing, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Fallon, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Farr, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Fatchett, Derek
Jackson, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Favell, Anthony
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Fisher, Mark
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Flannery, Martin
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Fletcher, Alexander
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Fookes, Miss Janet
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Knowles, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Knox, David


Forrester, John
Lambie, David


Forth, Eric
Lamont, Norman


Foster, Derek
Lang, Ian


Foulkes, George
Lawrence, Ivan


Franks, Cecil
Leadbitter, Ted


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Leighton, Ronald


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lester, Jim


Freeman, Roger
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Gale, Roger
Lightbown, David


Galley, Roy
Lilley, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Litherland, Robert


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Garrett, W. E.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


George, Bruce
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lord, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Loyden, Edward


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lyell, Nicholas


Golding, John
McCartney, Hugh


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McCrindle, Robert


Goodlad, Alastair
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Gower, Sir Raymond
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Grant, Sir Anthony
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Greenway, Harry
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
McKelvey, William


Grist, Ian
Maclean, David John


Gummer, John Selwyn
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
McNamara, Kevin


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
McQuarrie, Albert


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McTaggart, Robert


Hannam, John
Madden, Max


Hardy, Peter
Madel, David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Major, John


Harris, David
Malins, Humfrey


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Malone, Gerald


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Maples, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Marek, Dr John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marlow, Antony


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Haynes, Frank
Martin, Michael


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mather, Carol


Heddle, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Heffer, Eric S.
Mawhinney, Dr Brian





Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Meacher, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Mellor, David
Rogers, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Rooker, J. W.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Michie, William
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Mikardo, Ian
Rost, Peter


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Rowe, Andrew


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Ryder, Richard


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Ryman, John


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Moate, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Monro, Sir Hector
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Montgomery, Fergus
Sayeed, Jonathan


Moore, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Sheerman, Barry


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mudd, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Murphy, Christopher
Shersby, Michael


Neale, Gerrard
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Needham, Richard
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Nellist, David
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Nelson, Anthony
Silvester, Fred


Neubert, Michael
Sims, Roger


Newton, Tony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Nicholls, Patrick
Skinner, Dennis


Normanton, Tom
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Norris, Steven
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


O'Brien, William
Snape, Peter


O'Neill, Martin
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Onslow, Cranley
Spearing, Nigel


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Speed, Keith


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spencer, Derek


Ottaway, Richard
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Parris, Matthew
Squire, Robin


Parry, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Patchett, Terry
Stanley, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Steen, Anthony


Pavitt, Laurie
Stern, Michael


Pawsey, James
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Pendry, Tom
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Pike, Peter
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Pollock, Alexander
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Porter, Barry
Stokes, John


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Powell, William (Corby)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Powley, John
Strang, Gavin


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Straw, Jack


Prescott, John
Sumberg, David


Price, Sir David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Radice, Giles
Terlezki, Stefan


Raffan, Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Randall, Stuart
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Redmond, M.
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thornton, Malcolm


Renton, Tim
Tinn, James


Rhodes James, Robert
Torney, Tom


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rifkind, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Waddington, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Robertson, George
Waldegrave, Hon William






Walden, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Wilkinson, John


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Wall, Sir Patrick
Wilson, Gordon


Waller, Gary
Winnick, David


Walters, Dennis
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ward, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Wareing, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Warren, Kenneth
Woodcock, Michael


Watson, John
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Weetch, Ken
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Welsh, Michael



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


White, James
Mr. James Hamilton and


Whitfield, John
Mr. John McWilliam.


Whitney, Raymond





NOES


Alton, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Beith, A. J.
Steel, Rt Hon David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cartwright, John
Wainwright, R.


Freud, Clement
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint
Wigley, Dafydd


Johnston, Russell



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Noes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Simon Hughes


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 302.

Division No. 222]
[7.17 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Clarke, Thomas


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clay, Robert


Alton, David
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Anderson, Donald
Cohen, Harry


Ashdown, Paddy
Coleman, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Conlan, Bernard


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnett, Guy
Cowans, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Craigen, J. M.


Beith, A. J.
Crowther, Stan


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Dr John


Benn, Tony
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bennett, A, (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bermingham, Gerald
Deakins, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Anthony
Dobson, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, Jack


Boyes, Roland
Douglas, Dick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, Raymond


Caborn, Richard
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Ewing, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Ian
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Canavan, Dennis
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Fisher, Mark


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Flannery, Martin


Cartwright, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Forrester, John





Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Nellist, David


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foulkes, George
O'Brien, William


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
O'Neill, Martin


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Freud, Clement
Parry, Robert


Garrett, W. E.
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman
Penhaligon, David


Golding, John
Pike, Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife,)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prescott, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Radice, Giles


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Randall, Stuart


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Redmond, M.


Haynes, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Richardson, Ms Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robertson, George


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rogers, Allan


Howells, Geraint
Rooker, J. W.


Hoyle, Douglas
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ryman, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Johnston, Russell
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Snape, Peter


Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon David


Leighton, Ronald
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Strang, Gavin


Litherland, Robert
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Loyden, Edward
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McCartney, Hugh
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McCusker, Harold
Tinn, James


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Torney, Tom


McKelvey, William
Wainwright, R.


Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, James


McNamara, Kevin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McTaggart, Robert
Wareing, Robert


Madden, Max
Weetch, Ken


Marek, Dr John
Welsh, Michael


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
White, James


Martin, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Gordon


Meadowcroft, Michael
Winnick, David


Michie, William
Woodall, Alec


Mikardo, Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. John McWilliam.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Anthony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Tom
Bendall, Vivian


Ashby, David
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)


Aspinwall, Jack
Berry, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Biffen, Rt Hon John






Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Greenway, Harry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Body, Richard
Grist, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gummer, John Selwyn


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Harris, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Haselhurst, Alan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bright, Graham
Heddle, John


Brinton, Tim
Henderson, Barry


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hicks, Robert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hill, James


Bruinvels, Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hirst, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hooson, Tom


Budgen, Nick
Hordern, Peter


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A,)


Butcher, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Butterfill, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jackson, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sydney
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Chope, Christopher
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Churchill, W. S.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knox, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lamont, Norman


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lang, Ian


Cockeram, Eric
Lawrence, Ivan


Colvin, Michael
Lester, Jim


Conway, Derek
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Simon
Lilley, Peter


Cope, John
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Corrie, John
Lord, Michael


Couchman, James
Lyell, Nicholas


Cranborne, Viscount
McCrindle, Robert


Critchley, Julian
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Crouch, David
Macfarlane, Neil


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute,


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Maclean, David John


Dover, Den
McNair-Wiison, P. (New F'st)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McQuarrie, Albert


Dunn, Robert
Madel, David


Durant, Tony
Major, John


Dykes, Hugh
Malins, Humfrey


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Malone, Gerald


Eggar, Tim
Maples, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Marlow, Antony


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mates, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mather, Carol


Fallon, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Farr, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Favell, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fletcher, Alexander
Mellor, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Merchant, Piers


Forman, Nigel
Muyer, Sir Anthony


Forth, Eric
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Franks, Cecil
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Gale, Roger
Moate, Roger


Galley, Roy
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moore, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Goodlad, Alastair
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gorst, John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mudd, David


Grant, Sir Anthony
Murphy, Christopher





Neale, Gerrard
Squire, Robin


Needham, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, John


Newton, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Normanton, Tom
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Norris, Steven
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Ottaway, Richard
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stokes, John


Parris, Matthew
Stradling Thomas, J.


Patten, John (Oxford)
Sumberg, David


Pawsey, James
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pink, R. Bonner
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pollock, Alexander
Terlezki, Stefan


Porter, Barry
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Powley, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Price, Sir David
Thornton, Malcolm


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Raffan, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Tim
Waddington, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Rifkind, Malcolm
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walters, Dennis


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Ward, John


Rost, Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew
Warren, Kenneth


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Watson, John


Ryder, Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wheeler, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitfield, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Raymond


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wiggin, Jerry


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shersby, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Silvester, Fred
Wood, Timothy


Sims, Roger
Woodcock, Michael


Skeet, T. H. H.
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Speed, Keith



Spencer, Derek
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 20.

Dlvision No. 223]
[7.29 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Amess, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Arnold, Tom
Baldry, Anthony


Ashby, David
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Bellingham, Henry






Bendall, Vivian
Grist, Ian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Harris, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Body, Richard
Heddle, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Henderson, Barry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bottomley, Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hirst, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hooson, Tom


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hordern, Peter


Bright, Graham
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Brinton, Tim
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Brown, M. (Bhgg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bruinvels, Peter
Jackson, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A,
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Budgen, Nick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Burt, Alistair
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Butterfill, John
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Knowles, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Knox, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lamont, Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Lang, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan


Churchill, W. S.
Lester, Jim


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Lightbown, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lilley, Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lord, Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lyell, Nicholas


Cockeram, Eric
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Coombs, Simon
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Cope, John
Maclean, David John


Corrie, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Couchman, James
McQuarrie, Albert


Cranborne, Viscount
Madel, David


Crouch, David
Malins, Humfrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Malone, Gerald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Maples, John


Dover, Den
Marlow, Antony


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mates, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Mather, Carol


Durant, Tony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dykes, Hugh
Mellor, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Merchant, Piers


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fallon, Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Farr, John
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Favell, Anthony
Moate, Roger


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Monro, Sir Hector


Fletcher, Alexander
Montgomery, Fergus


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moore, John


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Forth, Eric
Moynihan, Hon C.


Franks, Cecil
Mudd, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Murphy, Christopher


Gale, Roger
Neale, Gerrard


Galley, Roy
Needham, Richard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Nelson, Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
Normanton, Tom


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Norris, Steven


Goodlad, Alastair
Onslow, Cranley


Gorst, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Gower, Sir Raymond
Ottaway, Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Greenway, Harry
Parris, Matthew


Griffiths, E. (B"y St Edm'ds)
Patten, John (Oxford)





Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Pollock, Alexander
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Porter, Barry
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Powell, William (Corby)
Stokes, John


Powley, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Sumberg, David


Price, Sir David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Raffan, Keith
Terlezki, Stefan


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Renton, Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhodes James, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rifkind, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waddington, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rost, Peter
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rowe, Andrew
Walden, George


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Ryder, Richard
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Warren, Kenneth


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watson, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shersby, Michael
Wheeler, John


Silvester, Fred
Whitfield, John


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Derek
Woodcock, Michael


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. John Major and


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
 Mr. Michael Neubert.


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)





NOES


Alton, David
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Ashdown, Paddy
Sedgemore, Brian


Cartwright, John
Skinner, Dennis


Freud, Clement
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howells, Geraint
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wainwright, R.


Johnston, Russell
Wallace, James


Kennedy, Charles
Wigley, Dafydd


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)



Loyden, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Michael Meadowcrort.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the improvements in the level of educational provision since 1979, including the increased proportion of under-fives in school, the lower pupil-teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools, the expansion of non-advanced further education and the growth in participation in higher education and endorses the Government's policies for raising the standards and effectiveness of the education service within the resources available.

European Community

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): There is no doubt that this is the right moment for this debate. We are at an important stage in the history of the Community. The negotiations that have been under way since the Stuttgart Council last June are rightly seen as having a far wider significance than the sum of the individual issues, because there can be no doubt that the outcome will have a decisive influence on the shape of the Community for many years to come.
The House will wish to consider the individual issues in the negotiations in some detail. Before I turn to those issues, let me underline the strength of this Government's commitment to the European Community. It is our conviction that membership is an essential element in our national life and that the Community's well-being is vital for Britain's prosperity.
Last June, the people of this country made it very clear that they took the same view of that central question. Despite the economic problems that have beset us since accession, despite the difficulties of adaptation, despite the often hard struggle to ensure that the Community reflects the interests of nine and then ten member states, and not just the balance struck between the original six, there is no doubt that the British people recognise that Britain's future lies within the Community.
In face of that clear verdict, it is all the more remarkable that the Opposition apparently still intend to take the line in this summer's European elections that
withdrawal remains one of the options available to Britain".
I do not think that the House can be in any doubt why the Labour party is forming up behind that inglorious phraseology. It is presumably the only basis on which all the party's spokesmen can be persuaded to unite. I suppose that that is achievement of some kind. But I must tell them that it will not, when the time comes, enable them to avoid answering some difficult, but necessary, questions. Are we better in or out? Are we likely to have better prospects for investment in or out? Do the Opposition complain about the farm settlement because it is too expensive or because it gives too much or too little to the farmers?
I hope that the House will hear answers to some of those questions tonight. It is not open to the Opposition simply to rest on a crude political calculation, designed to camouflage the contradictions in Labour policy. They cannot for ever take refuge behind the Kinnock word mountain. So long as they go on trying to do so, they will have nothing to offer that is remotely relevant to the needs of the Community today.
The real task that has faced this country during the past decade has been how best to develop the advantages of Community membership to the full. We have seen a position develop in which the United Kingdom has been required to shoulder a manifestly unfair share of the budgetary burden. The Community has not developed policies in areas away from agriculture in the way that we had been led to expect. For a number of years now we have faced the need to secure a fairer deal on the budget in a series of annual negotiations.
Ever since this Government came to office in 1979, that has been one of our major concerns. We have been determined, and rightly so, to find a lasting way of avoiding that annual return of the Community to the financial barricades. We have been determined as well —in the longer term this is of even greater importance —to find ways of developing the Community's potential to the full.
We have been seeking to fashion a fresh approach for the Community. More and more, our partners have been seeking to do the same. Many of them have come to share our concern. Our French partners have increasingly stressed their view of the need for what they call a relaunch of Community policies. We entirely agree with that approach. We have been, and are, doing all that we can to ensure that that comes about.
That is why the Stuttgart declaration of June last year was such an important landmark. The agenda it established for the negotiations was a measure of how far the Community had already come. Stuttgart called for new policies, control on spending, an examination of revenue needs and, above all, a fair budget system. It was an ambitious agenda, which has led to many hard days and hard nights of negotiation in Foreign Affairs and Agriculture Councils and at two European Councils.
Europe has not yet completed that work. Despite the headlines proclaiming failure, the House will, I think, have detected a strong feeling, growing throughout Europe, that the Brussels European Council marked real, and I hope decisive, progress down that road. I should like to remind the House of the notable part played at that Council by the French presidency in promoting that progress.
The Brussels summit has brought the Community within measurable distance of what may come to be seen as a historic agreement. Agreement on substantial and, as the House knows, inevitably painful progress has been made towards reform of the common agricultural policy, to make it more responsive to market forces.
We have come close to agreement on effective control of Community spending, both agricultural and other expenditure. We have reached agreement on a number of new policies, and on the development of existing policies that are the key to the prosperous and dynamic Community of the future. Many of those new policies—this is of fundamental importance — do not call for any fresh Community finance.
Finally, we have made substantial progress towards agreement on a revised method of financing the Community that will ensure that future development is not held up by annual arguments about the sharing of the budgetary burden.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I do not know how much detail my right hon. and learned Friend intends to give about the new means of finance in the Community, but we should be grateful if he could go into a great deal of detail because many people have been perplexed and, to some extent, confused by what has been coming out of Brussels. Could my right hon. and learned Friend go into every detail so that we can understand?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not have the opportunity to embark upon sufficient detail to fill my hon. Friend's mind as much as he would like to have it filled. I shall be


coming to each of the issues in due course, in the light of what took place at the Foreign Affairs Council last week and at the Agriculture Council meeting last weekend.
I begin with budgetary discipline, because nothing better illustrates the extent of the progress that has been made than the way in which the question of budgetary discipline is now likely to be treated within the Community.
We have not been alone on this issue. Several others, in particular the Dutch and the Germans, have long shared our anxiety on this score. Before the Athens European Council, the French added their powerful support to the view that budgetary discipline was an essential part of the Stuttgart package.
The Brussels European Council confirmed two vital points. First, it is accepted that the rigorous rules that govern budgetary policy in member states should apply also to the Community budget. Secondly, the important point has been accepted that revenue should govern expenditure—and not the other way round. Not all the details have yet been translated into the rules and practices that will be necessary, but two important principles are no longer in dispute.
First, at the beginning of each year's budgetary procedure, the maximum level of overall expenditure for the following financial year will be fixed. Secondly—this is an important feature for many hon. Members—the rate for the growth of agricultural expenditure should be held below the rate of growth of Community revenue.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: rose——

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If I am to satisfy the demand of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for detail, I must make my speech without interruption.
In the weeks ahead, it will be the task of the Council of Ministers to translate those principles into measures that will guarantee their effective application, so that budgetary discipline becomes a full part of the Community's budgetary procedures.
The rules that follow from those principles must ensure that any possible increase in own resources does not once again lead to an uncontrolled growth in agricultural spending because of lax, undisciplined budgetary procedures.

Mr. Robin Cook: Would the Foreign Secretary share with the House his view on whether this week's agricultural settlement represents an example of that budgetary discipline? If so, will he explain to the House how that settlement results in another £500 million of expenditure on agriculture over and above the estimate provided for by the Commission and budgeted for by the Council of Ministers, and where that money will come from?

Mr. Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting, because that makes the score one each on both sides of the House. I was just going to come, to the excitement of the hon. Gentleman, to the very question which he has raised. It was dealt with, of course, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he spoke to the House yesterday on the results of the Agriculture Council.
Neither my right hon. Friend nor any other hon. Member had any doubt about the difficulty of those

conclusions. But nor should anyone doubt that the outcome was a major step towards reform of the CAP. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is frequently disposed to make this point — indeed, it is a point frequently made from the Opposition Front Bench; how, they say, can this be claimed to be a sufficiently effective conclusion of the agriculture debate when it still costs too much money? Yet, at the same time, they reserve the right to complain of the consequences for the agricultural community. They really have got to make up their minds.

Mr. Cook: rose——

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to explain his policy on these matters in his own speech.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: rose——

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will give way in a moment, when I have taken this argument a little further.
I have said that this represents a major step towards reform and I have mentioned that the removal of open-ended guarantees on products in surplus is a major step. The agreement on a price freeze or price reductions for most commodities is a considerable achievement.
Implementing those decisions is not going to be easy for any member state. This has been made very clear by the chorus of complaint that has arisen not just within our own farming community but among farmers throughout the EC. But I suggest that if one takes into account the relative importance of agriculture in our country, the historic levels of production and other economic circumstances, the pain has not been too unfairly distributed.

Mr. Taylor: If the calculations prove to be wrong on the agricultural percentage increase, through no fault of the Government or of any member of the EEC, what, under the existing procedures, is to stop either the Council of Finance Ministers or the Council of Agriculture Ministers deciding by a majority to impose a supplementary expenditure, which would of course push us through the ceiling? Does the Secretary of State agree that we would need either to change the treaty or to introduce regulations to stop a majority decision of the Council breaking through the percentage increase?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the features of the provisions under discussion and on the way to agreement in the European Council is a stipulation that not only shall the sum be paid every year be fixed, but, if there is for any reason any kind of overrun, that has to be collected or clawed back in following years. It has to be handled on the basis of a three-year moving average, because it may fall either short of or above the initial figure, for one reason or another.

Mr. Taylor: rose——

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. I cannot give way too often.

Mr. Taylor: Just very briefly.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry. I sympathise, as everyone must, with the dairy farmers who are worded about the effects of the milk super-levy. But very few of them, I hope and believe, can possibly contest the fact that the Community cannot go on producing 20 per cent. more milk than it can consume. Indeed, they have recognised that fact for some time.
Again, hon. Gentlemen are dissatisfied with the manifest hardships that are going to follow from this step and the direction of reform. If they wish the step to be more dramatic, more sustained, more swift, more urgent, they must stand up and be counted and say that the difficulties facing the farming community are not enough to satisfy them; that they wish to see far greater difficulties introduced at far greater speed. They cannot go on having it both ways.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture told the House yesterday, bringing milk production down from last year's level of 105 million tonnes to 99·5 million tonnes this year is expected to save the Community £1,000 million a year. Yet this still leaves 10 million tonnes of surplus production which the common agricultural policy will have to finance. So, of course, the process has to go on, but there must be some recognition of the significance of having taken this decisive step in the right direction.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot go on giving way.
I know that some people argue—as the Opposition seek to do—that we should have gone further in cutting milk output, but others say that the cut represents an intolerable burden for our farmers. A balance had to be struck, and that is what my right hon. Friend was striving to achieve. While doing that, he obtained agreement on many features of importance to our farmers. For example, a one-year transitional arrangement will ease the adjustment to the new quotas; the intensive levy originally proposed has been turned down, as has the notion—which I can understand appeals to some people, but which is much more helpful to countries other than our own—of exclusions for small producers. There is scope in what has been agreed for special treatment of difficult cases —for example, where substantial investments have been made recently or production has been distorted by disease.
In other sectors, much has been achieved that is of importance to British farmers and consumers alike. The butter subsidy has been kept in place. The beef variable premium scheme has been continued, albeit at a slightly reduced rate. Arrangements on sheepmeat which are of particular advantage to our hill farmers have been established, and we have successfully resisted—this, I believe, is important—the Commission's proposed tax on oils and fats.
Much has been said — this point has been raised already — about the excess cost of the agricultural package. Of course, some parts of the agreements will be expensive and further progress in the same direction is necessary.

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Sir Geoffrey Howe: This is particularly true of the agreement to dismantle monetary compensatory amounts. Other measures which I have already described will make substantial savings. There is a long way to go before agricultural spending is brought fully under control, but I make the point — this has been recognised — that a significant and courageous start has been made.

Mr. Budgen: On that point, is it enough? My right hon. and learned Friend was saying at one stage that it was

necessary to have a fundamental reform of the CAP before we were prepared in this country to authorise an increase in own resources. There was also another condition in relation to the budget. But, under the heading of the CAP, is the deal as it stands enough to constitute a fundamental reform?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend should be invited to take note of this point. The deal reached in the Agriculture Council on Friday and Saturday is a formidable step in the right direction——

Mr. Budgen: But is it enough?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: —and it is acknowledged to be a formidable step in the right direction.

Mr. Budgen: Is it enough?

Mr. Howe: I heard my hon. Friend's question the first time he put it; he need not go on putting it time and time again. He asks whether it is enough. Of course in itself it is not enough, but this progress under this deal has been made even before the regulations that are going to become operative have started to operate. For that reason it represents, as I say, a significant and courageous start.
I must say that here again there is a curious lack of precision about the policies of the Labour party. [Laughter.] I can imagine laughter being prompted by the accuracy of that observation. How do hon. Gentlemen reconcile their call for radical reform with the criticism which they reserve the right to make that the reforms achieved are too vast? How can they say, as they do, that the agreement costs too much, while adding that it should be put into place more slowly? They really must tell the House, and above all they must tell the farmers, exactly how they would cut agricultural costs. [Interruption.] Of course one has to have a balance between farmers and consumers. The Labour party seeks to go on pretending that one can get everything always. What it must consider —this must be of concern even to the Labour party—is how much British agriculture would have to contract if its policies were ever implemented.

Mr. Robin Cook: I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for putting up the score to 3:2. He has asked for a precise statement from the Opposition, and I shall give him one. In the view of the Opposition Front Bench, the control of agriculture expenditure which he has outlined does not constitute a case for increasing own resources. If the Community, when bumping against the ceiling of expenditure, can still find another £500 million to spend on agriculture, there is no reason to imagine that the formula which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined will work after he has increased the resources that are available. Does the first step of the deal which he has outlined add up to a case for increasing own resources?

Mr. Budgen: That is a perfectly fair question.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The step which I have been outlining, which has been achieved in agriculture, is one component that must be judged before we consider the issue of own resources. The Opposition must make up their mind which way they want to play this issue, and it seems that they cannot do it. The nearest that the Labour party has come to explaining its policy is to be found in a rather engaging statement of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on 22 March. During a 20-minute speech on this subject, he said:


If I had more time, I would go into the ways in which we could reform the policy."—[Official Report, 22 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 1280.]
The failure of the Opposition to make specific and constructive criticisms and proposals is a measure of the gap between their general denunciation and anything that is practically significant.
The most difficult issue in the negotiations is the fairness of the Community budget. The present own resources system was set up in 1970 for a Community of six. It has become increasingly clear that it does not operate fairly in a Community of ten. This is being recognised more and more by our partners in the Community. They realise that the Community cannot live from hand to mouth, from year to year—all the more so as they are arguing that the Community now needs new own resources. So this is precisely the moment to ensure that in future the Community is financed on a fair basis.
In that respect, we have made a good deal of headway since Stuttgart. The arrangements under discussion at the previous European Council and in the past week cover all the key points. If they are adopted in their present form, they will ensure that any member state which carries an excessive budgetary burden in terms of its relative prosperity will have its contribution to the budget corrected and brought into line. They will ensure that the correction will no longer be applied through a system of refunds based on notional payments on the spending side but through a reduction in the VAT contribution in the following year. They will ensure that the duration of the correcting mechanism will be linked to any decision on new own resources. In other words, contributions will be related to ability to pay and there will be no more ad hoc arrangements from year to year. This is plainly a much more sensible way in which to finance the Community.
The issue which still separates us in the negotiations is the figure on which the system should be based. The gap between what we have been offered and what we can accept may seem small, but there are two points to be noted. The first point is that every step that we take to meet the other nine has to be paid for exclusively by the United Kingdom, whereas every step the others take to meet us is shared among nine.

Mr. Stuart Bell: What a specious argument.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot begin to understand how the hon. Gentleman sees fit to make that comment. If the burden that has to be borne is shouldered by one country, it is much heavier than if it is shared among nine others. If the burden is shared, it is a much smaller one for individual member states to accept. The second essential issue——

Mr. Bell: rose——

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, I must get on. The second essential issue is that the base figure, the figure which has to be determined, will govern what will happen in the years ahead. The system will be dynamic and will thus determine the sharing of the Community budget in future. That is why we must get the base figure right from the outset. What counts is the cumulative effect over a long period.
Some have accused us of not being sufficiently flexible, and it is not surprising that we have been accused by others

of just the opposite. The truth is that our aims have remained constant and firm but that we have adapted our tactics as the situation has developed.
It is easier for those member states which benefit from the present arrangements to combine to resist change. We have not argued for a zero contribution, for we expect to remain net contributors to the Community budget, even under a new system. We want to ensure that that net contribution does not increase unreasonably. The question for us is not so much the size of our rebate in the opening year, though that is important, as the way in which the system will develop over a number of years.
The Prime Minister said at Stuttgart that we would consider an increase in own resources provided that we achieved control of agricultural and other Community spending, and provided that we achieved a fair share of the financial burdens. Those two conditions remain absolute. In the absence of agreement on those conditions, there is no question of an increase in own resources.
Our partners argue that, because we are now up against the 1 per cent. ceiling and because it is impossible to negotiate immediate real cuts in agricultural costs, an increase in own resources will be necessary to allow the continuation of existing non-agricultural policies, the adoption of important new policies, and enlargement.
The Commission proposed that to avoid the issue arising again in the near future there should be an increase of the VAT ceiling to 2 per cent. Some member states supported that proposal, while others argued that an increase to 1·6 per cent. was desirable. If there is to be an increase as part of a package, we take the view that it should be restricted to 1·4 per cent. in 1986 and that it should be subject to ratification by national Parliaments. If there is to be a proposal of a further increase of 1·6 per cent., that, too, could take place only with the unanimous agreement of member states. That, too, would have to be subject to ratification by national Parliaments. That view was accepted eventually at Brussels by every other member state.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend mean that there would be two separate ratifications, two separate measures, two separate debates and two separate discussions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Precisely. That is the point that I was emphasising, which was eventually accepted at Brussels by every other member state. So we accepted that there was a case for a limited increase in the VAT ceiling, but we made it clear that that depended on long-term effective control of Community spending and on the establishment of a fair and lasting budget system. I cannot emphasise too strongly that a necessary consequence of such a system—that is, a fair and lasting budget system —is a significant reduction in the effective burden on the United Kingdom.
I hope that the House will allow me to anticipate one more argument that no doubt will be advanced. I have made it perfectly clear that the Community's failure to agree to pay our 1983 refunds now is unjustified and misconceived. Whether or not they are paid in the next few weeks, there is no question but that the Community is committed to making the payments, and we shall insist that it does so. Nevertheless, we have taken the view that we should take no action which might damage the prospects of decisive progress in the present negotiations.
I must make it clear to the House, as I have done to our partners in the Community, that that commitment must be honoured. We shall not agree to any increase in own resources which does not have as its counterpart a satisfactory budgetary settlement. That must, of course, include the 1983 refunds.
I have left until the end the new policies section of the negotiations because the new policies represent, certainly for us, the future of the Community and the way in which we want to see it emerging when we have solved the outstanding issues in the Stuttgart package.
The European Council was successful in reaching a large measure of agreement on policies and on developing existing policies. These include, for example, the development of Europe's scientific and technological potential, which is one of the keys to the future prosperity of the Community. We shall adopt a framework programme by the end of June for telecommunications and biotechnology and there will be an increased programme for Community research and development.
Secondly, we wish to free the internal market so that European companies may derive more benefit from the common market within the Community. We want to introduce measures to reduce frontier controls to simplify trade procedures, to establish common standards and to open up public sector contracting. Thirdly, we are intent on liberalising trade in services, especially by the removal of restrictions on lorry traffic, and the opening up of the insurance market. As London emerges increasingly as the financial centre of Europe, that will be of particular significance to the United Kingdom.
The specialist Councils will be required to get on with these priority tasks as rapidly as possible. We shall be pressing for practical action and we shall do our utmost to keep the momentum going. It has been the task of Conservative Governments since 1979 to repair the damage done to the Community and to Britain's role within it by the half-hearted and obstructive activities of the previous Labour Government.
The Opposition may not like to be reminded, but when they were last in office they had the opportunity to show what they could do. They failed abysmally. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), a member of that Administration, told the House the truth on 22 March, when he said:
The last Labour Government failed to secure radical reform of the CAP. Invariably, we allowed ourselves to be bought off'.—[Official Report, 22 March; Vol 56, c. 1286.]
He was quite right.
The last Labour Government in this context failed to achieve reform of anything, radical or otherwise. The last Labour Government left this country instead with an agricultural policy that was running out of control, and a rapidly rising budgetary burden. This Government have had to grapple with the consequences of that failure, and we have been doing so with increasing success ever since.
The resolute and consistent approach of this Government to Community issues has produced results—and will go on achieving results. We have achieved a common fisheries policy which provides a good deal for British fishermen. We have made a courageous start on reforming the common agricultural policy. We have secured budget rebates worth £2,500 million over four years. We are now moving

towards a long-term agreement for a fairer budget. The Labour party negotiated a financial mechanism which secured not a single penny for Britain.
Slowly but surely, we are seeing the Community put its house in order and equip itself to deal with the challenges of the modern world—above all, perhaps, the challenge of securing the European recovery which will be the best long-term basis for fuller employment for our citizens.
In all of this, Britain under this Government has been giving a lead. We have been a catalyst for change within the Community. Change is often uncomfortable, but it is necessary. The prizes to be won for Europe are great. A successful European Community is a major British national interest. That is why the Government will persevere with their efforts to set the Community on a basis which will enable all its members to contribute fully and fairly to its success.

Mr. George Foulkes: The Opposition welcome this debate and I personally welcome the opportunity to lead for the Opposition. I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary was overwhelmed when 481 hon. Members went into the Lobby to decide on the closure of the previous debate so that they could hear us. Not all of them have been able to turn up, however.
We regret that there is no opportunity tonight for the House to express its wishes on two key issues—first, on withholding our contributions to an amount equal to the rebate due and, secondly, on whether Britain should agree to increase own resources. We look forward to the eventual debate and vote on that issue.
This debate is about the current negotiations within the European Community. The negotiations stretch over the whole period of this Government. We shall show that, in relation to the targets and objectives that the Government set for themselves, their record is one of repeated failure.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Nonsense.

Mr. Foulkes: I shall prove that it is not nonsense. No rebate has yet been paid. The common agricultural policy is still uncontrolled. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will trace the tactical withdrawal —or, more precisely, the retreat—on the question of increasing own resources. The Government's attitude has changed from, "We might consider that after we achieve our demands" to the current position of an agreement being made before we have achieved what we asked for.
The record is a catalogue of failure dressed up as successes or triumphs by carefully controlled, clever media manipulation. In reality the Prime Minister is like the grand old Duke of York, who has led her men up to the top of the hill—summit after summit—to conquer CAP expenditure, to achieve lasting solutions to the budget imbalance, and most recently to secure that elusive 1983 rebate. Each time she has marched them down again.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has chosen to attack my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Has he read the latest issue of the New Statesman, in particular an article by Mr. John Palmer, a senior member of the Socialist Society, who is in control of the European Socialist strategy? He says:


It is a useful rule of thumb that when the Labour Party reaches for the Union Jack to attack Tory Prime Ministers, it is to cover up its own ideological nakedness. Europe, and all matters EEC, have long been a major blind spot for the British Left, but the EEC budget crisis has underlined the bankruptcy of official Labour policy towards Europe.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister of State for that intervention. As he knows, we do not all share the blind spot that he described. I am reliably informed that, like the Minister, Mr.- Palmer is not a member of the Labour party, so I cannot take any responsibility for his remarks. The New Statesman is not an official Labour party paper.
I remind the Foreign Secretary of the first alleged triumph of the Prime Minister. It was not at Stuttgart, but at Brussels in 1980 when we heard about the long-term solution. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) reported to the House, and there was no doubt in his mind four years ago, about the unrivalled opportunity for a solution to the Community's problems.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
With the review commissioned for 1981 and the proximity of the I per cent. VAT ceiling, we have an unrivalled opportunity to bring about sensible adjustments to the operation of the CAP and to put the Community's finances on a sounder basis than ever before. This Government came to office determined to make a success of our membership of the Community. The first task was to deal with the inequitable budget contribution. That we have now done."—[Official Report, 2 June 1980; Vol. 985, c. 1046.]
The Government claimed in 1980 that they had solved the problem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said at the time, that was certainly not so.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the hon. Gentleman set that argument in the context of the series of triumphs that he will no doubt claim for the last Labour Administration over the way in which they set about tackling our problems in the Community? That juxtaposition would be useful to the House.

Mr. Foulkes: Some hon. Members who are present were connected with the last Labour Administration and perhaps they might contribute to the debate.
We read in June 1980 that the problem was solved, and the euphoria and ecstasy in the House was unbelievable. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who is not known as a supporter of the present Government and their Prime Minister, said:
I also express appreciation of the fact that the question of the budget has now been settled".—[Official Report, 2 June 1980, Vol. 985, c. 1050.]
Even more ecstasy was expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), who asked of the Lord Privy Seal:
Is he aware that this agreement will be seen as yet another demonstration of the Prime Minister's extraordinary ability to make possible the seemingly impossible?"—[Official Report, 2 June 1980; Vol. 985, c. 1051.]
That did not do him much good.

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider leaving that line of argument? Does he agree that it has become a convention of the House that every Minister coming back from the EEC always claims a great triumph? If the hon. Gentleman disagrees, can he cite any instance throughout the period of our negotiations for membership, and during our membership of the Community, when any

Minister of any Government came back and said that the meeting had been disastrous and that the whole thing was a failure?

Mr. Foulkes: I agree that that is not normally the inclination of any returning Minister, but from time to time they admit to having problems, as hon. Members on both sides know. Nevertheless, I will accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures and move on to the more recent history of negotiations since the last general election.
As the Foreign Secretary said, the key meeting was at Stuttgart on 23 June 1983. To judge from accounts of previous summits, any participant who attended all of them must have had a feeling of déOà vu at Stuttgart as it involved the same issues, the same agreements, the same unrivalled opportunities and the same inexorable pressures as three years before. The main questions discussed were exactly the same. The Prime Minister came back and told the House that the objectives set were clear directions, a tight timetable and effective procedures and said that the conclusions reached at Stuttgart met those objectives. She said that urgent procedures would be set in train, that there would be special meetings in the run-up to the Athens summit and that special responsibility for dealing with those meetings would be placed on the Foreign Secretary, the "master of detail". He would be in charge, and at Athens in December 1983 everything would be all right. Greater budgetary discipline, effective control of agriculture and other expenditure and equitable sharing of the burdens would be achieved.

Mr. Marlow: There are serious issues at stake. Will the hon. Gentleman stop trying to score party political points and address himself to them?

Mr. Foulkes: They are indeed serious issues. I shall come to the previous pronouncements of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) in a moment.
My understanding was that the British rebate was agreed and accepted at the Stuttgart summit, albeit falling short of the Government's previous target. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said earlier, it also fell short of the unanimous resolution of the House of 22 November 1979. Nevertheless, the British rebate was agreed at that meeting of Heads of Government and no conditions were placed upon it. It did not depend on any agreement on any other subject. The hon. Member for Northampton, North—an unbiased observer, as it were — helped in this context when he asked the Prime Minister the following question:
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the excellent rebate that she negotiated on behalf of the United Kingdom will be available whether or not there is an agreement over the long-term finances of the Community later this year?
The Prime Minister replied:
The arrangement that we reached on this year's refund is separate from the long-term arrangement."—[Official Report, 23 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 149.]

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is becoming an anthology.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Lady does not like too many quotations from the Prime Minister because they reveal too many twists and turns in the past few years, but she is going to hear them.
The Athens summit was billed as the final solution. There seem to have been a great many finals in this. The Times described it as the longest summit ever and as a


total failure bringing the EEC to the brink of financial and political collapse.
The Prime Minister's next statement to the House was another example of back-tracking. She said that all the matters should be considered as a whole, casting aside the assurance given to the hon. Member for Northampton, North that the rebate would be taken separately. The Prime Minister blamed the failure of the Athens summit on everyone else but said that things would be better at Brussels — it moves around from capital to capital. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked what was likely to change between Athens and Brussels, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, "The weather"—and that was all that did change.
Between Athens and Brussels another opportunity was lost. The French President appointed a Minister for Europe, Mr. Dumas, who went from capital to capital ensuring that the French view was co-ordinated for the next meeting. The British Foreign Secretary, however, seemed transfixed. No action was taken and the United Kingdom became even more isolated than it had been previously. Potential allies who could have been brought together were alienated and no urgency was apparent.
At home, however, the Prime Minister made brave noises and ringing declarations for United Kingdom consumption, especially in the patriotic tabloids, in which she was constantly quoted as saying, "It's our money!" The distinguished political correspondent of The Times, Mr. Anthony Bevins, reported on 21 October 1983 that a Bill to block EEC cash was ready if the talks broke down. I suspect that that piece of tough talk was a leak from someone other than Sarah Tisdall and that no inquiries or prosecutions followed. The report stated:
The Government is understood to have drafted a contingency Bill and a supporting White Paper which could be used to block British contributions to the European Community budget in the event of a breakdown of talks on the future of Community development.
It said that
civil servants were instructed to draw up contingency plans before the Stuttgart summit, making the necessary amemdments to the European Communities Act that would enable Britain to take unilateral cash action.
It continued:
One Whitehall source confirmed last night that the Government did have contingency plans.
Will the Foreign Secretary or the Minister of State confirm that? Where is the Bill? Where is the White Paper? It would be interesting to know. The Government talk tough but act weak.
More recent history shows even more abject failure by the Government.

Sir Anthony Meyer: When the hon. Gentleman was younger and wiser, he was a great believer in Britain playing an active part in the Community. We therefore listen with rather more interest to the hon. Gentleman than to some of his hon. Friends to hear how he thinks that further progress can be made. Is there any chance of anything constructive from him today?

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman clearly finds it difficult to accept that the Conservative Government have failed for the past four years. The Brussels summit was a total collapse although, yet again, before the meeting took place the Foreign Secretary predicted success. If that

prediction is anything to go by, I doubt whether he was betting on Hallo Dandy in the Grand National. The Prime Minister told the House:
The Government are considering what action we should now take to safeguard our position.
We would like to know what action will be taken to safeguard our position. There was a policy shift. The Prime Minister was so concerned about the total collapse at Brussels that the Cabinet were to be consulted about what to do. But there were already hints from the Prime Minister of a climb-down. She said that the rebate was
not a legal necessity
but habit and custom. The right hon. Lady's natural instincts then prevailed, and she said that the action of the Community was reprehensible and almost intolerable.

Mr. Budgen: Many hon. Members will accept that the Government have wriggled all over the place in the negotiations. Will the hon. Gentleman please set out the Labour party's position on the deal and say whether the Labour party believes that the deal justifies the increase in own resources?

Mr. Foulkes: That is a valid question, and I shall deal with it.
In her statement on the Brussels summit, the Prime Minister cited precedents for withholding. She said:
in 1979, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom refused to pay full VAT contributions… In 1981 the French, Germans and Belgians… refused to pay… in respect of the 1980 supplementary budget". — [Official Report, 21 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 1049–1053.]
The House understands that the Prime Minister's instinct must be to withhold — to take some decisive action. Clearly she has been counselled and cautioned about the legality of that step, but my understanding is that the United Kingdom would be acting illegally only if the European court ruled as such, and we would still have several months before that might happen in which to decide. That would be decisive action by the Government and the Foreign Secretary. So far, we do not know what decisive action is being suggested.

Mr. Robert Jackson: The historical rigmarole that the hon. Gentleman is offering to the House is simply an account of a long and difficult negotiation made more difficult by the irresponsible and unconstructive attitude of the Opposition.

Mr. Foulkes: Not at all. We are talking about what the Government have done and what success, if any, they have achieved. The negotiations have been a failure for the Government on every count. We are debating the Government's negotiations. After the next election, when we are back in power, things will be different.
After the abject failure of Brussels, which put the Government and the Cabinet into grave difficulty, the day was saved by a most unlikely saviour — President Mitterrand—and the Foreign Secretary had yet another opportunity to save the honour of the country and of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Why does the hon. Gentleman describe his Socialist colleague the President of France as an unlikely saviour?

Mr. Foulkes: He is certainly an unlikely saviour of the Conservative Government in their difficulties. There was a peculiar contradition in the Prime Minister's statement.


France and Germany vetoed our deal, but the President of France was said to have been very helpful about our rebate. That is difficult to understand.
At the eleventh hour and 59th minute the Prime Minister was still making reassuring noises to the Leader of the Opposition. On 22 March, she was saying that our refund was not due until 31 March, as if that was something to be pleased about. There were still nine days left in which the Community might undergo a last-minute conversion and pay the money.
I come to the final chapter in the sorry saga that has unfolded in the past fortnight. Predictably, the Foreign Affairs Council—at which the Foreign Secretary had a last chance to save the field — ended in failure. Yesterday we heard that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has agreed to a deal that will cost us more, not less. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston estimated the figure at about £500 million. He was gently contradicted by some Conservative Members. They may have been right to contradict him, because the figure may be closer to £800 million or £1,000 million. That cannot be called keeping the CAP under control.
There is still a surplus of 10 million tonnes of milk agreed for the next five years. It is an institutionalised part of the operation of the Community. However, the consumer is no better off. Milk prices do not fall, although that would be a sensible way to deal with the surplus, and beef prices will rise. Yesterday the Minister was challenged about how this situation measured up to the fundamental reform required as a prerequisite of the increase in own resources. He could only say that it was a vital first step. If it is, it must be a step in a very long staircase. To our mind, this does not satisfy the prerequisite for an increase in own resources.

Mr. Michael Lord: Would the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how beef prices will rise?

Mr. Foulkes: The farmers themselves have predicted that beef prices could rise by between 18p and 25p in the pound. That is the prediction that I have read in the papers, and I have no reason to disbelieve it.
Already, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seems to have swallowed up the projected VAT increase to 1·4 per cent., before it has even been agreed. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has give a clear outline of the Labour party's alternative agriculture policy and he will be glad to do so again at any time, for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) or anyone else.
In spite of all the statements from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, all the debates and all the Question Times, questions still remain unanswered. Britain's rebate is now overdue. We have passed 31 March without any payments being made. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to answer my questions. What advice was the Cabinet given about the legality of withholding the money due to us? The House should be told what the advice was. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield said last week, according to justice and the rules of the Community the refund should have been paid to us by 31 March. If agreements reached at summits do not mean anything, why do we bother to have them?
What are the Government doing to safeguard Britain's position? We have been told that they are worried, but what are they doing? That is the least of the promises that

they have made to us. Where is the rumoured Bill on withholding, and the White Paper? When will the House have an opportunity to express its views on the matter?
The Foreign Secretary has spoken about own resources. Will he explain why, although his belief was that the increase to 1·6 per cent. would have to be approved by the Parliaments of the member states, Mr. Mitterrand said at a press conference on 21 March:
The maximum rate of VAT mobility was set at 1·4 per cent. as from 1 January 1986 concomitant with the Community's enlargement, and would rise to 1·6 per cent. after two years, on a unanimous vote of the Council of Ministers.
There is no suggestion there that the national Parliaments will have to approve the change. I hope that the Foreign Secretary can explain why his understanding differs from that of Mr. Mitterrand.
Will the Foreign Secretary also explain a fundamental contradiction in the Government's tradition? The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others have said that the necessary precondition of increasing own resources is real and effective control of the CAP. However, the Foreign Secretary must agree that if we achieve such real and effective control, an increase in own resources will not be necessary. Is that not the case? The hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) said last week that our ability to prevent an increase in own resources is our trump card. It would seem more truly to be our only card in this game. From what we heard previously—I am not reassured by what we heard earlier today — it would seem that the Government are in danger of discarding that trump card before we have achieved the objectives which they set.
The Foreign Affairs Council will meet again on 9 April —yet another last chance for the Foreign Secretary to achieve some success. What can we expect then? What will be done between now and then to get support from our partners and to end our isolation in the Community? Will the stumbling from meeting to meeting and from crisis to crisis continue, or will the Government achieve their objectives?
The Government have failed, first, because they have no overall co-ordinated strategy for the Community, unlike the French, who have appointed a Minister for Europe to co-ordinate their strategy. Secondly, they have failed because they made no attempt to persuade the European Parliament at crucial times about the necessity of our rebate or, indeed, to win allies among our partners. Our abrasive style of negotiating, especially that of the Prime Minister, has lost us allies instead of winning them. Now we have even conceded the Irish milk demand for one year with bad grace and bad diplomacy, without getting their support in return, and we have agreed a deal which the Prime Minister said would be devastating to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
The objectives were set out by the Government in 1979. They have failed to control agricultural spending. They have failed to get long-term changes in the budget and they have even failed to obtain the one-year rebate that was agreed at the Stuttgart summit. The farmers are unhappy; the consumers will see prices increasing; the other nine member states have been alienated by the Government; and we have obtained none of what the Government set out to achieve. Meanwhile, the Community has failed to tackle the major problems of 14 million people unemployed, of increasing poverty in the Community and of starvation in the Third world. In voting for the


Adjournment tonight, we shall register our view that the Government's policy in the community represents total and abject failure.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): I begin by setting this matter in context in two ways. First, I remind the House that the size of the Community budget is about £15 billion, which is roughly equivalent to either our defence or health budgets. Therefore, it is as important to review and control the Community budget as it would be to review and control one of our domestic budgets. The second context is the attitude of our continental colleagues to our approach to negotiations with them. Our approach is seen differently on the continent from how it is in Britain. That is understandable, but it is worth remembering and repeating.
Our continental colleagues say, "You negotiated your entry to the Community under one Government in the early 1970s, you pronounced yourselves satisfied with it and you came in. Your Government then changed complexion in the mid-1970s, renegotiated the terms and even went so far as to have a referendum on the matter. They obtained the support of the overwhelming majority of the British people for membership of the Community and pronounced themselves satisfied. We were astonished when, in the late 1970s, when your Government changed hands again, you were still unhappy with your terms of membership and came back to us wanting further negotiations."
It is little wonder that we have problems in persuading our Community colleagues that we are in genuine difficulty on this matter. They are fully entitled to say, "What is wrong with you British? Do you not understand what the Community is about? Do you not understand what negotiations are about? How many times must you come back to us under different Governments and pronounce yourselves in turn satisfied and dissatisfied?" It is important to remember that that is the context in which we have had to approach the negotiations yet again and have had to try to persuade our continental partners of the justice of our case.
Having said that, the Government's position has been made clear, and it is one on which we can all stand four square. It is that finance should determine expenditure, not vice versa. That commends itself to me as a sound Conservative principle and a sound commonsense principle.
On 28 March my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that the Government would entertain a proposal for an increase in the Community's resources
only if there is effective control of Community spending and a fair sharing of the budgetary burden."—[Official Report, 28 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 295.]
Every hon. Member would agree with that proposition. However, my problem is this: how far have we moved towards that position and how far are we persuaded that we have arrived there sufficiently to proceed to the next vital step in the development of the Community? How far have we gone towards the proposition that finance will determine expenditure, and how effective are our Finance Ministers in curbing the enthusiasm of their agricultural colleagues?
In considering this matter we should examine agriculture, which represents about two thirds of the Community's budget and which is still the most important aspect of the Community's activities that must be controlled. Therefore, we must consider the extent to which we are moving towards or have achieved effective control of agricultural spending. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
The trend makes it doubtful whether, in 1984… agricultural expenditure can be easily met within the budgetary provision.
In 1984 agriculture is budgeted at about 16·5 billion ecus. My information, which I regard as extremely reliable, is that that sum is almost bound to be exceeded by a minimum of 2 billion ecus. That will occur for several reasons: first, because of the cost of the recent mca changes; secondly, because of the carry-over of the 1983 deferred expenditure; thirdly, because of the price increases that have been conceded on some products; and, fourthly, because of likely changes in world markets, especially in cereal harvests.

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend drew an analogy between the EC budget and Britain's health budget. Does he accept that the analogy goes further and that both budgets are open-ended because they are both entitlement-led budgets? Does he agree that we must limit that open-endedness and that this is what has been achieved in the dairy settlement?

Mr. Forth: I am persuaded in one respect by my hon. Friend's point, and that is that we all agree about the objectives. However, I remain to be convinced that what was brought back to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister yesterday was a significant step towards ending the open-ended arrangement. There are two elements in the problem of the agriculture policy: one is the volume and the other is the price level. Although we have gone some way towards tackling prices, I am not convinced that we have dealt with the volume.
My right hon. Friend the Minister also said yesterday:
The Community will need to take the necessary steps to limit expenditure."— [Official Report, 2 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 661.]
We have not yet heard from anyone what that would involve. If we must face a minimum increase of 2 billion ecus in the Community's agricultural expenditure in 1984, where will that money come from?
It can come only from a very limited number of measures, and we have yet to hear which are to be invoked. One would be a reduction in another head of Community expenditure, perhaps the regional fund or the social fund. Both of these are beloved by many hon. Members, and the United Kingdom benefits considerably from both. None of us would like to see either of them cut. What shall we have then—a supplementary budget, or a further passing round of the hat? If we have either of these measures, how can that be accepted in the context of a claim for a need for a reduction in or limitation on agricultural spending? How far can we be persuaded that we have made any significant progress along the path of a reduction in or control of agricultural spending if in the very year that we have embarked on this project we find that already we are being invited to cover further expenditure on agriculture? This is the problem that I have with these negotiations and proposals.
We heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that the agricultural package is not in itself enough to meet the criteria laid down by the Government for an increase in own resources. I found that statement at least reassuring—[Interruption]. He said that. We shall see it in Hansard tomorrow. I made a note of it. I heard him say that the agricultural package was not in itself sufficient justification for the Government to proceed to agree to a further increase in own resources. That is what I heard him say. Hon. Members will be able to check the record tomorrow.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I help the hon. Gentleman? As I understood it, the Foreign Secretary referred to the budget imbalance. I share the hon. Gentleman's apprehension if that is what the Foreign Secretary meant, but if I understood him correctly he was saying that the agricultural settlement was not in itself sufficient because it was yet to be accompanied by action on the budget imbalance. There was no suggestion in what the Foreign Secretary said that he was not prepared to recommend the agricultural settlement as meeting the conditions on agricultural expenditure that he has attached to an increase in own resources.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The note that I have is that the Foreign Secretary would not agree to an increase in own resources unless he was satisfied on the budget and the refund payment was made.

Mr. Forth: We all know that the record of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is always as reliable as Hansard, and I am prepared to accept what she says.
I wish to move to the second point about the rationale behind an increase in Community own resources in itself. One thing that we have not heard too much of as yet is the argument for an increase in Community resources per se. We have heard the context in which it is said. Those of us who have experience of our continental friends know of their various enthusiasms for spending on various projects. We know that the Community has become a very effective mechanism for devising ever more methods of spending money, preferably other people's money, and often ours. What we have not yet heard is an argument in detail as to why the Community justifies having more resources of its own at this point in its development.
If an institution is proving ineffective in dispensing and using resources in its current circumstances, how can it justify to any reasonable person a further increase in those resources? That is the nub of the argument. The argument has become obfuscated by the negotiations which have gone on whereby we have tried rightly to limit our input to the Community budget and in return have been prepared to concede the principle and ultimately, I suspect, the fact of an increase in Community resources without going through the vital stage of asking why the resources should be increased and what we would do with them if they were.
Again, we were given a hint of this by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when he suggested some headings under which this could be justified. The most important of these need not necessarily incur any additional expenditure, because if we are to make the Community work better we certainly need free movement of goods within the Community, the dismantling of the non-tariff barriers to trade and all such

related matters. We need progress in the free movement of goods and services and so on. None of these need have any budgetary significance.
Although the argument is still to be made, we may need a new level of expenditure on research and development which some would argue could be more effectively carried out by the Community than by individual nations. I should like to hear that argument articulated in much more detail.
The final justification for the increase in own resources is enlargement. Again, that is a subject that has been woefully neglected as an argument in itself. It is often introduced as a kind of digression or sideline to other vital arguments. Various Ministers from the Foreign Office have stressed often what they regard as the great importance to the Western democracies of bringing Spain and Portugal into the Community. I find this argument singularly unconvincing. For example, if one considers the membership of NATO, it is not in any way conterminous with the membership of the Community. Some members of the Community are not in NATO. Spain has already agreed to support, if not to join, NATO without being a member of the Community. I do not think that the two should necessarily be tied together.
More worrying is the fact that we are being told that to have the privilege of an enlarged Community we may have to provide more resources to the Community and through it to the new members. I invite my hon. Friends and the House to speculate on the result on the political balance and on policy-making within the Community of an enlargment of the membership to 12. What will happen when there is a possible alignment of the members of the south—Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France when it suits it—to reorientate the policies of the Community towards what are loosely known as the Mediterranean products, although Portugal is far from the Mediterranean? That is one of the policy issues that faces a potentially enlarged Community. We are rarely invited to think about it and the House has not been given sufficient time to consider it in the past.
I am watching most carefully the progress of the negotiations on all these interrelated matters, but I do not as yet believe that we have reached a point where we have been given sufficient justification to go to the vital stage of giving the European Economic Community more resources. We must satisfy ourselves about our own position, about the agricultural policies and about enlargement and its implications. Until I hear very much more about these matters, I shall reserve my judgment.

9 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Not the least valuable part of the valuable speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) was the invitation to the House to look at these negotiations as they appear to the rest of the European Economic Community.
It would be easy superficially for a person listening to the report of the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, after the European Council, and of the Foreign Secretary last week, after the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, to conclude that, apart from the rhetoric, this was really only another of those habitual paroxysms of the Community where a gap is left which is presently filled by one more heave, large or small, by one more compromise or by one more rearrangement of the figures.
This time it was different, and was perceived to be different. Often, a fundamental difference—one which


forces itself on people's attention — presents itself as though it were a quarrel about details, about figures and relatively small amounts. The new feature—or, at any rate, the feature new in its intensity—which followed the events of the last two weeks was the much more realistic reaction of the other members of the European Community. They seemed at last to realise what had lain behind the train of events of which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire reminded the House and which, no doubt, is fresh in the minds of our EEC partners. They realised, for example, how strongly feeling in this country remains set against membership itself.
I notice that the French Liberation wrote:
Madame Thatcher has every reason to stand firm on her cheque. She has behind her 55 per cent. of the British people ready to leave Europe at a day's notice, but also 20,000 miners on the eve of losing their jobs who would not be at all understanding if the so-called Iron Lady paid handouts to French and Italian farmers.
They have also recognised that there is a fundamental difference of intention on the part of this country from at least some of the other members of the Community. In an important speech, the German Chancellor brought that out plainly when he said:
The question is, who is ready to follow us"—
presumably Germany—
along the road to political union with the declared goal of a United States of Europe?
By implication, the suspicion had dawned on Herr Kohl's mind—I shall return to this shortly—that whoever else said aye to that, the British people did not. But perhaps most perceptive of all, as one would expect, was the French Foreign Minister, M. Cheysson, who told the European Assembly that
he was concerned that there was an incompatibility between the original six EEC countries and those who joined later with different interests and characters.
That was well perceived. There is a radical incompatibility. There is the incompatibility of Britain's perception of itself in relation to the European continent; there is the incompatibility of the economies of a country such as ours and the much more profoundly agricultural countries of the European continent; above all, there is a constitutional and political incompatibility.
I hold in my hand — I have treasured it — the document which was issued in 1975 to all citizens when they were invited to give their advice — it was only advice, it will be recalled — on the question of our continued membership of the EEC. On the page entitled "Will Parliament lose its power?" was a reference to the then recent Government White Paper in which, so it said, the
Prime Minister declares that, through membership of the Market, we are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is the essence of sovereignty.
There followed the all-important sentence—the answer which, no doubt vainly, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) sought from the Foreign Secretary—about the legality of any action by this country to protect itself and its rights:
The British Parliament in Westminster"—
it is said in what was not a partisan document; but the factual basis on which all citizens were invited to reach their conclusion—
retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1st 1973. Thus, our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.

That, I suppose, every Englishman would take for granted. He would say, "That is a fair description. That is what it is all about. That is what we understand to be our political rights and liberties." But that is not what has hitherto been understood by the remainder of the members as the nature of our adherence to the Community.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The right hon. Gentleman has made it plain, as he has on repeated occasions, that he would reject any compromise that would enable the Community to function effectively. He has also made it plain on repeated occasions that he rejects any compromise that would enable the Commonwealth to be any kind of effective force. Is he, therefore, saying now, and has he said on other occasions, that he welomes the total isolation of this country?

Mr. Powell: I fear that I may, perhaps for the first time, disappoint the hon. Gentleman, not so much—it would be out of the line of this debate—by any remarks on the Commonwealth but by what I have to say about our relationship with the EEC.
This is a formidable trinity of incompatibilities which lies behind the differences of approach that have been signalised and forced into recognition by the Prime Minister's determination. That is something that we have to face; and, unless we are to go round the dreary and self-destructive cycle many times yet, the rest of the Community will have to face it too. Yet, incompatability or not, we cannot contract out of Europe.
We are attached to Europe by the fundamental necessity of a relationship of exchange that is much more than an exchange of trade — it is an exchange at all human levels between ourselves and the peoples of the adjacent continent. With that crucible of humanity that is Europe, with its political strivings, its cultural attainments and even its religious movements, this country is inextricably bound up. What happens politically on the continent of Europe is bound profoundly to affect this country. We cannot set aside those facts because we discover that the framework in which we have hitherto endeavoured to perceive and manage our relationship with the European nations is defective and incompatible with all that we hold most closely dear.
This is an age of institutionalisation, or, to put it more elegantly, an age of institutions. We seem to need to create for every problem or perception a corresponding institution to fit it. Certainly, we need an institution to fit our true relationship with the nations of the European continent without any prejudice to what we intend for ourselves, what we mean for ourselves, and what we understand about ourselves.
I believe that to be the truth lying behind what the Prime Minister has said repeatedly. A fortnight ago, she said:
I want to see a more effective Community, developing its full potential. That is the Community in which I believe."—[Official Report, 21 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 1050.]
Only a few days ago she said:
many of us had far greater ideals for the European Community than have yet been achieved. We shall continue to work for them but we believe that the financial and agricultural matters must be settled first."—[Official Report, 29 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 446.]
I do not believe it was mere words for the sake of words when the Prime Minister said that. I do not think that—as I admit I was base enough to suspect when the Foreign Secretary opened his speech this evening—this was a sort of shield behind which she could advance unobserved


to the attainment of her immediate objectives. I think she was expressing the sense, which almost all of us have, that we must find a different—a better and more successful — institutionalisation of our relationship with the European nations than the framework of the original Six with which M. Cheysson observes that we are incompatible. We have to devise that. Along with the rest of the European Community, we are engaged this time upon a profoundly important venture, and it is essential that neither on this side of the Channel nor on the other should its magnitude be misunderstood. We are looking for a new relationship, a new conception which will work; one in which we can give without taking, in which we can contribute without meanness or grudging. That is the task which the nation wants this Government to perform. I believe this Government can perform it.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary for his patience and stamina in the past few months. The same applies to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whose sleepless nights are now over, I hope. Within the terms allowed, they have both negotiated skilfully. However, my criticism is that the European negotiations are not ordinary negotiations where there can be a free exchange of bargaining counters. Over the past few months we have had a unique opportunity to create a different Europe. That Europe cannot be created by negotiating along previously established lines. If we let that opportunity slip away, it may never return. We must not let it slip away by treating the whole exercise as simply another horse deal.
Own resources are central to that difference. Speaking as a European, I oppose any increase in own resources. I resent any implication that, because I resist an increase in own resources, I am thereby anti-European. I supported Britain's entry to the Common Market. I voted in that referendum following the farcical renegotiations— and how they got it wrong—to stay in. I want a drawing together of European foreign and defence policies. I want a removal of barriers to trade and a genuine free exchange of services and goods. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary alluded to the new policies being worked out in Brussels. I hope that we can give them a fair wind. In short, I believe in a Europe that achieves its full potential for peace and prosperity.
However, all that is being distorted and obscured by the present structure of the Common Market. It is no good saying, "Let us go for the political objectives and not argue about a few hundred million pounds." For a start, it is not a few hundred million pounds. We are committing ourselves now to a stream of contributions that will be difficult for any future Parliament ever to influence again. Secondly, and more important, a budgetary system that is fundamentally flawed—and flawed it certainly is—will for ever create bewilderment and resentment among the people of Europe. We can all understand and even support a system whereby the richer countries contribute to poorer countries; but that is not what we have or are being offered. The negotiations in Europe sanctify a system whereby Britain, a poorer country, pays an annual tribute to her richer neighbours. Great damage is being done to the European ideal by that permament and enduring imbalance.
We are also entitled to ask about the competence of the European institutions that control and administer the budget. The Common Market has run out of money because of agricultural overspending. Who is responsible for that spending? It is certainly not the farmers. All that they have done is to react to a favourable price regime in the most logical way—by increasing output. They have been encouraged to do so by a succession of Ministers and a collection of grants, many of them European, designed to increase European agricultural production and productivity. Of course, farmers and the National Farmers Union press for higher prices. That is their job. The surpluses are not their fault. They are evidence of a European failure, a refusal to face reality. It is a European failure of political nerve, an attitude of spending now and asking questions later.

Mr. Barry Porter: Does my hon. Friend not recognise that, for the first time and fundamentally, the French and German Governments have accepted that reality? That is what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was saying, as I understood it.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, the point I am making is that the spending dynamic in Europe is still there. France and Germany may have marginally changed tack, but the same European structure, the same coalition of interests that created the problem, remains unreformed.

Mr. Jackson: Will my hon. Friend recognise that these problems are inherent in any system of managed agricultural markets? After all, the American dairy surplus is larger than the European surplus. So this has nothing to do with European institutional structures: it is an inherent problem.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is an inherent problem, given the present structure of European institutions. We have an unholy alliance between national interests bargaining for a slightly larger slice of the cake and European interests arguing for a larger cake in the first place. My point is that those same institutions remain intact and that we are being asked to give them a higher VAT contribution.
It is indeed a much higher contribution, because an increase to 1·4 per cent., which, I gather, is the minimum being contemplated, would add about £3,500 million to the Community's own resources. That is an increase of about 25 per cent. I see very little justification for reinforcing failure in that way. I see a need to cap the CAP. I see a need to control spending rather than increase it. The whole principle and rationale of the 1 per cent. VAT contribution, which has existed for some time now , is that it is automatically buoyant. Not only does it rise in line with prices—that is to say, it is inflation-proofed—but it rises in line with increased output. It is, as it were, super-buoyant. An increased level of consumer expenditure feeds directly and automatically into higher VAT contributions. As we are moving out of a recession, and as consumer expenditure picks up, so VAT revenue should increase throughout the Community.
It may be happening already. Last year we were told that the Common Market would run out of money by this spring. Doomsday has now been postponed. We are told that the Common Market may run out of money by the autumn. What is happening on the revenue side? May we


be told? I understand that the Commission has no estimate of the likely VAT yield in the coming year—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave that answer to a written question last month. All that the Commission would say is that it needs the money. We all need the money, but that need must be justified in arithmetical terms, because increasing our VAT contribution to the Common Market is not like any other increase in taxation.
In Westminster Budgets, taxes are often increased and, in subsequent years, reduced. What we are being asked to do here, however, is to transfer permanently an additional part of our revenue to an extra-parliamentary, extra-national body. That is the constitutional question that affects the historic duties and powers of the Parliament to which I have been elected.
I am not an absolutist on this issue. Absolutes are dangerous in politics. Nevertheless, to export our powers of taxation in this way requires rather more reason and justification than we have been given to date. I also have difficulty in reconciling such a step with the policies on which we on the Government Benches were elected last year. We stand for lower taxation and reduced public expenditure, yet here we are, being invited to move in the other direction. I see nothing especially virtuous in European public expenditure.
In the regional and social funds, in crude terms, money flows from London to Brussels; it is translated into eight languages, is subjected to a political bargaining process and then comes back to London. It is then spent on projects that might or might not have been worth while. That is not my idea of the European vision. It is not the cornerstone of my political faith and it is not why I supported entry into the Common Market in 1973.
I might be able to swallow some of my objections if I were more enthusiastic about the package of agricultural reforms presented to the House. I represent a large milk-producing constituency, which is tied to milk production every bit as much as any part of Ireland. We are being asked to cut back while Ireland is being permitted to expand. No doubt, these milk surpluses have to be controlled, although, if the fault lies anywhere, it lies with the European Commission, the European Assembly, and the Council of Ministers, and not with British farmers.

Mr. David Harris: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Commission has led the way in trying to bring things under control, and that the real responsibility lies with the Council of Ministers? For the past three years, we have seen this bidding-up process, which has led to even bigger surpluses. The Commission at least tried to make a start in this as far back as 1981.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not absolve any part of the European institution, and it would not be my intention even if I knew the answers to allocate blame precisely. The point is that exactly the same structure and institutions remain intact. If I were convinced that there had been profound reforms and that there was a new institution arising that might take a more realistic look at the future of agricultural spending, I might be more sympathetic to the idea of transferring more resources to those institutions.
I accept that there have to be cuts. I do not fall into the trap that Labour Members fall into of opposing an increase in own resources while also opposing the necessary cuts

in spending. I can see that there have to be cuts, but how is the axe to fall? Which sectors of agriculture are to be cut? Ministers said that one aim was to correct the imbalance between corn and horn, but this has not happened. A bigger cut in cereal prices, if it had come about, would have been attractive. It would have helped livestock producers and would have been good for the countryside and for the European taxpayer. As it is, dairy farmers have suffered a 45 per cent. reduction in real income since 1977 whilst cereal farmers have enjoyed a rise of 60 per cent. Nor do we know how the quotas will operate.
I have misgivings about the use of quotas in principle and would have preferred a straight price cut. It will have been a mistake if one of the things that comes out of this series of negotiations is a permanent milk quota system in Britain.
The price mechanism should take over from quotas to limit production in the longer term. Such price cuts are painful—I do not disguise that—but they are preferable to the inequitable and unfair system of quotas that will be imposed on national and individual milk producers.
The crisis caused by a shortage of cash should be an opportunity for a profound change, not an opportunity for postponement. The economies imposed on the milk sector are unfair and discriminatory, and I have not found that the case for the increase in own resources has been adequately made out.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: We have been in Europe for the last 10 years, in which time it has cost us roughly £1·5 million a day. One must therefore ask what, after spending £1·5 million a day, have we got out of it? Has it been of any benefit to our society?
In my short contribution to the debate, I wish to concentrate on my constituency, which gives an accurate reflection of what has happened to the country. The constituency has two halves to it, one physically very large and the other very small. In the very small physical area, glass is the predominant industry, and in the very large part of it farming is the predominant industry. Much of the land area of the constituency is farmland, some of it owner-occupied and some of it tenanted. I asked myself one simple question during the recent negotiations in Europe concerning the farming sector and in the other negotiations that have taken place in the last few years: how has my constituency benefited? The answer is that it has not.
There is an old saying that, if one is going to play the game, one should play by the rules. If one is to play by the rules, one should find out what the rules are. I regret that in this land we have never bothered to find out what the rules are. The rules by which we are supposed to play the game are not the rules by which the rest of Europe plays the game, and I make no bones about saying that. In the glass industry, as in the case of energy, and energy support, what does one find? The Belgians, the French and the Germans have hidden subsidies to their industries, by means of energy prices which are low and subsidised. We play by the rules. As a result, our glass is more expensive to produce. Therefore, we produce less of it, and we suffer import penetration. In this free market of ours, in which everything is supposed to be fair and above board, our industry suffers, and the industries of the rest of Europe profit.
One finds that the same situation arises with the Government. The Government seem not to understand the rules when it comes to glass. I give a simple example from the recent Budget. The Goverment imposed VAT on double glazing, forgetting that the French and Germans have a support system for people who wish to buy double glazing. I mention that because, in this free market of ours, apparently we do not play by the same rules that apply to everyone else. The list is endless, and includes farm support systems and the transfer of animals, carcases and various other food products across Europe. What happens? Everyone else has one set of rules, and we have another. We do not play the game by the same set of rules, yet we pay £1·5 million a day for the privilege of belonging to this rather expensive little club.
I do not pretend to be an expert on Europe, but I am an observer of what happens in my constituency. The fanning aspects of my constituency encompass dairy herds and cereal crops. Much of what has been said earlier in the debate is very true. It is ludicrous that we have a milk industry that supplies roughly 80 per cent. of our needs, yet we are told that we must have a reduction in our productive capacity of approximately 7·5 per cent. Quotas must also be considered. As a result, we will supply less to meet our needs. In supplying less to meet our needs, we shall have to import more. From where will these imports come? Of course, they will come from Europe. Treated milk will be flowing quietly in from the east coast ports to meet the needs of our society while our own diary farmers will be slaughtering their cattle, and our herds will start to decrease. I cannot see the logic of this. To belong to this club costs us £1·5 million a day, and so it will continue.
In the debate, the lovely little phrase "own resources" has been used by the Chancellor. It seems that own resources will be increased because of an increase in the percentage of VAT. We are not told when this will occur or how much more it will cost us to belong to this little club which signals the beginning of the slaughter of our dairy herds. Once that happens, we shall produce less milk and, in effect, will be asking for inefficiency.
The one advantage of belonging to the famous club is that our agriculture — which has served us so well, meets our needs and wishes to expand and become more efficient and, therefore, more productive, which is what we expect of any industry — is once again to be penalised by a series of quotas, premiums and goodness knows what else. That is the price of membership of that cosy little club, which costs us £1·5 million a day.
The problems are endless. As I was told earlier today, there is only one possible solution. The time has come to stop messing about. It is no good saying, "Look what the Labour Government did between 1974 and 1979", because that leads to the retort, "Look what the Conservative Government did between 1979 and 1984." The answer to both remarks is, "Precious little." Neither took the matter by the throat.
We must say either that we have a European concept that is a free trade area where the farce of propping up inefficiency is eliminated and where we do not pay ridiculous subsidies here, there and everywhere, or that it must be a really free trade and take out the barriers, let the goods flow and let the efficiency of our partners benefit both them and us.
I am talking about a different form of European market — one that recognises the concept that trade flows

without customs barriers, petty restrictions, bureaucracy and the other things for which we currently pay £l·5 million a day. The only benefit that we have achieved during the past 10 years of membership is, regrettably, that Britain now has the lowest level of supplementary benefit as a percentage of former earnings than anywhere in Europe.
The price of 10 years membership at £1·5 million a day is that our unemployed are worse off than anywhere in Europe. Much of that unemployment has been caused by the stupid bureaucracy of what is happening within the EEC. All that the recent negotiations will produce in the farming sector is further unemployment. Unless we actually grasp the problem by the throat and say that it must stop, that there must be free trade across Europe that will allow us to compete on the same terms and by the same rules as the remainder of Europe, the only alternative is to rewrite the rules of the treaty of Rome—in other words, to tear it up.

Mr. Robert Jackson: The House has been treated to a remarkable and—dare I say it—unusually positive speech about Europe from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). His theme was the need to institutionalise our relations with the continent—with a continent that is determined to organise itself, which fact in itself imposes certain conditions upon our association with it.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that we need to change the existing institutions of the EC, which are the expression of that necessary European interrelationship, so as to make them more suitable for the United Kingdom. I hope that he will recognise, in this more positive vein, that this is precisely what the Government are trying to do in these negotiations by seeking to change two key institutions of the EC—the CAP and the budget.
Anyone who has been following the saga of the budget negotiations and the question of Community budget reform—and I have followed them closely during the past five years in the European Parliament—knows that it is remarkable how far the British Government have succeeded in shifting the focus of discussion on to the ground that we staked out in 1979. This is true not only on the broad questions of principle but also of the questions of detail.
Hon. Members may think that some of these points are obvious, but seen from the other side of the Channel—and an interesing feature of the debate is that we have had some unusual glimpses of how things look from the other side of the Channel—they have not been at all obvious.
Let me go through some of these points. The Government has succeeded in getting across the idea that basic changes in CAP regimes are necessary to cut costs. We have now had agreement not only on the broad principle of such reform, notably in the dairy regime, which has just been changed, but also in the details of those changes: we have got across the idea that exemptions should be kept to a minimum; the intensiveness levy has been dropped; the oils and fats tax has been dropped; and so also has been the idea of restrictions on cereal imports.
Secondly, we have got across the need for a system of financial discipline to govern not only the so-called "non-obligatory" part of the European budget but also the "obligatory" agricultural expenditure. We have also got across the controversial principle that expenditure should


be dictated by revenue, rather than the reverse. If I point out that there is a rubric in the printed text of the European budget which affirms precisely the opposite principle, it will be readily understood how right the Secretary of State is to emphasise the novelty of this new position.
Thirdly, we have got across some recognition that the problem of the British net contribution is a genuine one, that there can be no dismissal of the sums involved and that the old French theme of the juste retour and its unacceptability cannot be a reasonable way of proceeding with the budget.
Fourthly, we have won some recognition that this British problem cannot be solved merely by the development of Community policies and by expenditure on policies other than those of agriculture—what might be called the Italian thesis. We have won recognition that a budget mechanism is necessary: it has been a major achievement to get that principle accepted within the Community.
I believe that all of this represents striking progress in fulfilling the vision of the right hon. Member for Down, South of changes in the Community so as to make it a more comfortable institution for us to belong to.
The Community has now reached what could be the final stages of this negotiation. We had a breakthrough at the Agriculture Council last weekend and we have a meeting of Foreign Ministers on Monday and Tuesday of next week. This debate in the House is our chance to let Her Majesty's Government know how we view the choices and the compromises that are facing them at this crucial time.
Of course, it is very difficult to comment on this because so much of the substance of the negotiations, as well as the atmosphere, is an unknown quantity to all of us on the Back Benches. But, subject to that consideration, my feeling is that the Government face some very difficult choices and that they will have to make those choices in a spirit of sober realism, in which I think this House should attempt to participate.
Thus, for example, although I argued against it when we had a debate on this subject on 20 February, I accept the Government's move to base the calculation of our net contribution not on the concept that all the own resources should be included but that it should be done on the basis of the VAT share only in own resources. The 250 million ecu difference between these bases is an earnest of our desire for a settlement, and on that basis I can support it.
I believe that the central difficulty that the Government face in this negotiation is that of how to find a mechanism that respects the fact that it is not possible for the net contribution of any member state, including Britain, to be limited to a fixed ceiling but which does not at the same time produce inequities and unacceptable situations as the budget expands in the future. That is the nub of the problem that the Government face in this negotiation.
The system that is being discussed, based on the conclusions of the French presidency, is a very complex one, with its arrangements for thresholds and for what is coming to be called the ticket moderateur. Its very complexity must provoke doubts about its effectiveness. I remember very well the Dublin mechanism negotiated in 1975 by Harold Wilson, as he then was. I recall vividly the enthusiasm with which it was greeted, because there was, I think, a genuine belief in all quarters that it was

actually going to do the trick. It was an exceedingly complicated mechanism and the fact was that it failed to produce a penny piece for the United Kingdom.
This one will certainly do much better—but I say to the House and to Ministers that we should not focus on the percentage of our net contribution that will be abated, however impressive that may be. We must focus on the absolute amounts that we shall have to pay, especially in future years.
Here I have something of a nightmare about the situation in which we might find ourselves in, for example, 1990 — when we may have a growing deficit in our balance of payments and a progressively diminishing contribution from oil, with a question mark over the volume of manufacturing exports. The nightmare is that we may then find that on the Government's side of the balance of payments account there are not only hefty costs in the stationing of British forces on the continent under the NATO arrangements, not only transfers in the form of foreign aid which we must continue, but a net contribution to the European Community rising from perhaps £450 million which is acceptable in 1984 to a sum which might be double that, or even greater, in 1990. Such a sum would then be unacceptably high in absolute terms even though in relative terms in a Community of 12 Britain could no longer be classed among the less prosperous member states because the average will fall as the Community expands among the Mediterranean countries.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am always puzzled by the concentration of the hon. Gentleman and others on the figures of £450 million and £1·5 million a day. With respect, those figures are fleabites when set against the real cost to the United Kingdom. The common agricultural policy costs us between £5,000 million and £6,000 million a year. That is the cost to the taxpayer and the consumer. That increases the £1·5 million per day to about £14 million or £15 million a day. We should include also the disaster that has befallen our manufacturing trade, which has gone from surplus into deficit by about £5,000 million annually. If the figures are added together, they produce a sum of about £28 million a day and not £1·5 million.

Mr. Jackson: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the statement of a former leader of his party and Prime Minister that "one cannot quantify an élan". It is exceedingly difficult to establish what the net economic effects have been outside the budget of our membership of the European Community. There have undoubtedly been costs on the agriculture side and there is a dispute about the extent to which our membership has assisted growth in the industrial economy and the degree to which that has counterbalanced the increased agricultural costs. The hon. Gentleman is on exceedingly difficult terrain when he raises these issues. The costs that he is describing are by no means as indisputable as he thinks. When we talk about the European Community budget, at least the sums involved are clear and it is possible to make a reasonable judgment. So I suggest that we should concentrate on the budget, which is the subject before us.

Mr. Robin Cook: If my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) is so mistaken, why is the hon. Gentleman so dismal about the 1990s? Why is he so lacking in confidence about the future that we shall have after another 10 years?

Mr. Jackson: I described a nightmare, and it is one that I hope will not come to pass. It is part of the nightmare that in 1990 we have a problem with oil and with our manufacturing trade. I hope and believe that we shall be able to avoid the latter problem. In that context, a net contribution of the sort that I have been describing would not be regarded as excessive. However, if the problems envisaged in my nightmare were to come to pass it would be regarded as excessive—which is why we need to find a mechanism to guard against that prospect.
I shall return to the main line of my speech. Many hon. Members will feel that the logic of my position is that the Government should not seek to reach a conclusion next week on this mechanism outlined in the European Council presidency's paper. It is a mechanism which undoubtedly carries with it the risks that I have described. So we must recognise that the choice is an extremely difficult one.
Let us ask ourselves what will happen if there is no agreement next week on the basis of the presidency paper. At the very least, there will be a possible loss of the undoubted positive features of the presidency paper, of which there are many. We would see a loss of the momentum that has now been created in the negotiations by the breakthrough on the agricultural front. We would see a hardening of positions in other Community countries as well as in Britain as we go through the European election campaign. That could be serious.
As the Government face these decisions, the House and the Government must be realistic about the strengths and the weaknesses of our bargaining position.
Too often in these debates it has been said that we have "only to wait for the money to run out". Let us not underestimate the problems involved in the money running out. For instance, we must consider the consequences for the agriculture industry. Many hon. Members will be more aware this week than they have been for some time of how important British agriculture interests are at stake in the negotiations. Moreover, let us not underestimate the ingenuity that our partners may use in stretching Community finances. The 1 per cent. VAT ceiling is pretty elastic: the buffers may turn out to be made of rubber. For instance, the non-agricultural parts of the budget could he raided if the European Parliament and a majority in the Council agreed. Or, more likely, there could be an agreement among the other nine countries to finance the CAP by national payments outside the budget — payments which would not be returnable to the Community budget—[AN HON. MEMBER: "What a good idea."] I do not agree that this is a good idea, because we would have to pay to finance the policy in Britain, but we would not be able to recoup that expenditure, and that could go on for a long time.
We must face other consequences of a failure to reach an agreement. The payment for 1983, the refund of £450 million, would not be made. We would not have cover for 1984, which could involve a sum in excess of £450 million. And there would be no prospect of a refund next year or the year after. That would point inexorably to the United Kingdom withholding payments.
When hon. Members looked over the brink of this abyss two weeks ago, the general feeling was that we should pull back because of the dangers. Opposition Members are, of course, light with the law: we see that not only in Europe but in other areas of national life. Irrespective of any high legal and constitutional principle, on which there are a

variety of views, there can be no doubt that from a political point of view that course is fraught with heavy risks both in domestic and in international terms.
So the decisions that the Government will have to take before next Monday and during the negotiations are difficult and the arguments about which course to take are finely balanced. My conclusion, for what it is worth, is that the Government should now try hard to close the deal. At the same time, I hope that they will seek to obtain some recognition of the fact that the complex mechanism which is envisaged may not work out satisfactorily in the end.
Although last month I argued against it, in the light of this argument I might now perhaps be forgiven for believing that there may be some advantage for us in the presidency paper's insistence that
the mechanism will operate only until the exhaustion of the new own resources.
Of course there is a risk that if the mechanism operates only until the exhaustion of the new own resources, the whole matter might be reopened to our disadvantage and I thought that this would be to our disadvantage last month. But as the details of the mechanism begin to take shape I must say that I see a more than compensating advantage in the matter being kept open in this way, because if the mechanism does not work out satisfactorily we shall then be able to reopen the question.
For, in the nature of things, the question of financing the Community will not go away. I have never been one to argue that the sums involved in the British net contribution are de minimis. They are important sums for Britain, and they will probably become even more important. This is not just a British question. It is a question that will not go away, because, using the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South, it is of fundamental importance for the "institutionalisation" of Europe. The history of all federations is clear— and I have no doubt that the Community is a federation[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] — in the making —[HON MEMBERS: "Ah!"]. Hon. Members may disagree with that judgment, but history will show in due course whether it is correct. History tells us that in the organisation of such entities — or institutions, to use the right hon. Gentleman's word — the financial aspects are fundamental. They are a rock on which either a whole complex splits asunder or on which, alternatively, a stable structure is built. Although Britain's efforts have been much misunderstood in the Community, we are trying to build —or rebuild—the Community's finances on a rock of stability—and we must never abandon that object.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that it is a principle in the House that one's vote is supposed to follow one's voice? That being so, is it not also logical that one's voice should follow one's vote? As the Liberal party earlier made great play about not wanting this debate, is it not illogical for a Liberal Member to seek to speak in it, especially as about 15 minutes of the time available was denied to other hon. Members by that party's behaviour?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Every hon. Member is entitled to seek to speak. Neither I nor the


hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) can anticipate what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) intends to say.

Mr. Johnston: I shall not spend time referring to the earlier argument, which was perfectly clear and simple. The Liberal party believes that it should have more time to raise Supply matters. I do not think that that was an unfair argument.
It is always difficult to comment on other people's negotiations which fail. There is a natural human tendency to believe that one could have done everything so much better oneself. Inevitably, too, one is ignorant of exactly what happened, what was on offer, how things were played, what relationships were like and why.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Johnston: With respect, I have hardly started.

Mr. Rogers: How long do we have to wait?

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long if I am not subjected to continued interruptions.
One reads with incredulity in the "Insight" column of The Sunday Times, or perhaps it is The Observer, that the summit collapsed because Chancellor Kohl was not getting the regular supply of nutrients that his considerable frame requires. On the other hand, one knows that people's attitudes are often conditioned by how they feel.
I do not think that my Social Democrat friends will mind my remarking——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Where are they?

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) always responds on cue. I am sure that they will not mind my saying, as we did a considerable amount of negotiating over three years——

Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Johnston: —that I emerged from some particularly gruelling sessions wondering how on earth people managed when they did not start from a common political basis and spoke different languages—however good the interpreters, nuances and shades of emphasis may be changed—and when their historical perspectives and domestic pressures were quite different. I certainly do not belittle the immense difficulty of such negotiations for any Government, but one thing is clear. Our Government, our representatives and, indeed, our Prime Minister showed neither negotiating skill nor political leadership in a situation fraught with enormous long-term dangers for everyone.
The position of Ireland on milk, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), is a good example. Given the dependence on milk of the Irish economy, it was clear that a special deal should and would be struck. I was recently looking at the Government's Green Paper on the budget problem which set out the percentage deviations from the norm of GDP per head in 1980–81. We were running at about minus seven, and the Irish were running at minus 50. It was evident that some arrangement would be made for them.
Hon. Members on both sides will agree that there was a political need to build on the improved relations which stemmed from the replacement of Mr. Haughey by Dr. FitzGerald. The proper course would have been for the United Kingdom to play a sympathetic role. Instead, the Prime Minister moved in with sure flat-footedness. She treated Dr. FitzGerald with inexcusable arrogance —there was no room for problems of interpretation there —and in the end the Irish got their settlement and we ended up with no diplomatic advantage at all. That was not an example of good negotiating.
The House, the farmers and the country deserve an explanation of how the milk agreement is to be operated. I am in a strong position to be critical because I have often stood here and defended the CAP, even while recognising the evident need to restrain open-ended production.

Mr. Buchan: Even when it was wrong?

Mr. Johnson: I have not defended anything when it was wrong. Since the basis of the agreement has been known, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has raised questions on these matters on several occasions. I refer hon. Members to the Official Report for 22 March and to an application under Standing Order No. 10 on 2 April. None of the questions that my hon. Friend asked have been answered.
I accept that the whole basis of the CAP was to provide a stable basis for agriculture, for supply and for the farmers. There is, however, a real danger that the effect of the milk agreement will be an abrupt change in direction, with all the problems that that would occasion, not least in areas of the country which the Government and the Community agree deserve regional assistance. That does not make much sense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro has already drawn attention to the grave problems facing Cornwall, where 80 per cent. of agriculture is in the dairy sector. At the other end of the country, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the agreement is likely to threaten the Kirkwall cheese factory, which is a vital part of that tiny economy.
It makes no sense to apply cuts in areas which are already recognised as having special problems. At the beginning of the debate, the Foreign Secretary said categorically that dairy farmers have long realised that over-production cannot go on. How, then, does he explain the advice given by the Ministry of Agriculture a year ago to farmers in Cornwall, quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro on 22 March? My hon. Friend said that in January 1983 the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was present at an NFU meeting. There were questions:
One particular gentleman received an answer, the words of which, I suspect, will ring in his ears for a long time. He said to the Minister, 'The surplus is as it is and is increasing. What do you want us to do? What do you advise the agriculturalists in this room do do?' I nearly fell off my chair in sheer disbelief at the reply. It was, 'Produce, produce, produce.' That was the reply given at a select agricultural meeting in an area like mine where farming is so important to the ecomony."—[Official Report, 22 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 1296.]
That is the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro, and it is not a good sign that the Government have been pursuing a sensible approach to this matter.
The Liberal party accepts the need to cut, but it must be phased in sensibly. Most hon. Members will have read the article by Hugh Noyes in The Times today. The Labour


party seems to be saying that the cuts are not enough, that they are not sufficiently draconian and that they are not quick enough. The Labour party is becoming the anti-agricultual party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What is the meaning of that?

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Major.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Major.]

Mr. Johnston: If the Labour party's view is that the cuts must be made more rapidly, that would have an even more devastating effect than the existing proposals are likely to have on the dairy industry. Everyone is waiting for the Government to tell us how the quota system will work and whether it is to be applied to dairies or to farms. The sooner we hear something about that, the better.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has made it abundantly clear that the Liberal party believes that the cuts in milk production are too large. What is the Liberal policy on how the Common Market should dispose of the 11 million-tonne surplus of milk that will be produced this year as a result of the agreement?

Mr. Johnston: I did not say that the cuts were too large. What I said—I thought that the hon. Gentleman was listening with his usual politeness—was that the phasing of those cuts must be more sensible. There cannot be sudden changes in agricultural policy without their causing considerable hardship to many people.
I wish now to concentrate on the political and industrial problems that face the Community and, therefore, Britain. The Liberal party has never disputed the necessity to have a budgetary basis which related our contribution to our gross national product. On the contrary, the Liberal and Social Democratic concept of the Community has always underlined the pre-eminent need to work for economic convergence and the development of the equivalency of opportunity in the Community. However, that requires an approach very different from that adopted by the Government. Mr. Genscher, the German Foreign Minister, remarked perceptively after the failure of the summit that it had
floundered not on figures but on attitudes to Europe".
There were proposals on the table from Denmark for a convergence fund and from West Germany for an evening-out based on gross national product. The basis was there, but what was lacking was good will or any vision——

Mr. Skinner: To give in.

Mr. Johnston: The crucial statistics behind the debate——

Mr. Skinner: That is what it really means: to give in.

Mr. Johnston: Since I have been subjected almost non-stop to interruptions by the hon. Member for Bolsover, may I say that good will is not an attribute of his.
The crucial statistics behind the debate are that during the past 10 years the United States has created 19 million new jobs, Japan has created 5 million and the European Community has created only 2 million. However, in the elections to the European Parliament in June this year, the

Community will have an electoral roll of 40 million people more than the electoral roll for the American presidential elections. During the 1970s, industrial production in the Community increased by 7 per cent.; in America it increased by 12 per cent. and in Japan by 28 per cent. That is the challenge on the economic side.

Mr. Harris: On the European elections, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that a major plank in the SDP-Liberal case will be a complete abandonment of the right of veto, as their European colleagues have advocated in the European Parliament?

Mr. Johnston: No, we have not said any such thing. What we have said is that there should certainly be a steady movement towards more majority voting.
On the political side, no one has spoken about security, disarmament, the precarious world balance or the capacity to exert influence in areas such as the middle east, where the balance could tilt disastrously, where neither the United States nor the Soviet Union is trusted and where no single European country can be effective. Therefore, there is an opportunity for the Community and for us through the Community to be more effective in these matters. These are the things at the heart of the future of all of us.
There is certainly a need for an expansion in own resources. The late agreement on the ESPRIT programme is of enormous potential importance, but with a budget of $700 million over five years I do not think that it can properly begin to compete with the United States and Japan. In 1982 the United States spent £22 billion on research and the Community only £15 billion. As a percentage of gross national product, we spent under 2 per cent. and Japan spent 3 per cent. These are the important statistics.
The extraordinary thing about the debate has been the refusal of either Government or Opposition to stress both the opportunity presented by the Community and the threat that the failure of the Community could bring in its train. Time has been spent bickering about who did best. Records have been compared——

Mr. Skinner: The Liberal party and the SDP make a big thing about stopping the bickering and being the people in the middle like general arbiters solving everything. If that is the case, why is it that in the Common Market elections we have the spectacle only a few miles from this building of a Liberal and a Social Democrat sparring with each other for the same London seat? If they cannot stop the bickering in the alliance between the SDP and the Liberals, how can they stop it in Europe?

Mr. Johnston: I think that a success rate of 80 out of 81 is not bad.

Mr. Skinner: They are falling out.

Mr. Johnston: Only in one out of 81 seats has there been a falling-out. That is not a significant statistic even for the hon. Gentleman to quote.
The Foreign Secretary described the Labour party as "half-hearted and obstructive". That does not seem to be an unfair description of the Conservative Government. Not one word of the speech of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley was constructive. He did not say one single thing about what the Labour party would do or hoped to see done. He had the gall to criticise the Government for being abrasive, as if to suggest that the Labour party by contrast was silky and co-operative. If one


believes that, one believes that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. I give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to deny that that is what he said. The fact is that the vaunted increase in VAT to 1·4per cent. will not be adequate. The Community is already spending on existing programmes at the rate of 1·3 per cent., leaving out of account any cheque for us, which, as the Government have said, is rightly due.
Therefore, the proposed increase allows no margin for unfavourable movements in agricultural prices, let alone for any significant changes in the budget, such as boosting expenditure on research, to which I have referred, increasing the regional fund and increasing the social fund to smooth the inevitable transition from the old industries in which we were dominant to the new ones in which we must find a way to compete.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman says that it is insufficient. Does that mean that he is calling for a higher value added tax remuneration to the Community?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, and I think that something over 2 per cent.;—

Mr. Skinner: Does the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) know that?

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) will recall that when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) made his final speech as president of the Commission, he called for an increase of own resources to 2·5 per cent.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman spell it out? The Liberal party wants over 2 per cent. of our value added tax paid to Europe. Is he now saying, with the authority of the former leader of the SDP and one of its principal spokesmen on these matters, that the SDP wants 2·5 per cent.? Will he also explain what that means in hundreds of millions of pounds?

Mr. Johnston: I am saying that 1·4 per cent., which has been spoken of, will not meet existing commitments and at the same time allow for the development of the programme about which I have been talking, including research, the regional fund and the social fund.

Mr. Buchan: How many hundreds of millions of pounds would that involve?

Mr. Johnston: I do not wish to prolong my remarks. They have already been long, although I have been interrupted considerably, and I have always thought it a good thing to give way. I cannot see this country prospering other than through a more effective European Community, and I cannot see us achieving economic recovery or political stability unless that takes place.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Speeches are becoming expansionary. I remind the House that long speeches are made only at the expense of other hon. Members' time.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) took pride in having given way. The whole of his speech was about giving away everything that Britain

has to the European Community. He has some endearing characteristics. He finds something wrong in everything that British statesmen say about the Community and something right in everything that European statesmen say about it. Another of his endearing characteristics is that anything that a Community country wants, or anything that the Community itself wants, is right, and they must have it, whereas any demand that the United Kingdom makes on the Community is wrong and curmudgeonly.
I take as my text motion No. 628 standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), and I thank him for the signal service that he has done in putting forward the definitive reformists' motion. I hope that I do not offend him when I say that I have striven for a long time to achieve such a succinct motion. In it, my hon. Friend says that he
is gravely concerned for the political future and international credibility of the European Economic Community",
a point that was well made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and I shall return to that issue. My hon. Friend goes on to say that the greater interests of Europe—not, note, the EEC—
lie not solely in mountains, lakes and money.
I caution my hon. Friend. Perhaps he has not travelled sufficiently to know how important those mountains and lakes—and, I must add, forests—are to history and to the cultural identity of Europe. "Powerful forces rise with the mists from our wooded hills and lakes. Do not tamper with them!"
As for money, what has that to do with the political future and international credibility of Europe? It is money that divides and is causing problems and distortions at the moment. It would be naive to believe that the statesmanlike oratory of the participants in each Euro wrangle is not prompted by a finely tuned calculation of the outcome of each policy in terms of national cash flow. It is money that gives ambition to the bureaucrats and hypocrisy to the discussions of Europe's future. Concentration on money prevents the development of policies. It is money that has been the enemy of progress towards our common destiny.
I agreed with every word of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she looked forward to a Europe that would take the initiative on world problems, build a more helpful relationship between East and West and work in partnership with the United States — to defend and promote the values and beliefs of Western civilisation. That is the way to strengthen the political future and international credibility of Europe. It needs no money.
The other European nations may see things differently. Perhaps they want or would accept a greater pile of European money—their vested interests obscuring the underlying realities. The smaller nations, wishing to reassert their nationality at the higher European level, are eager to dispense with their sovereignty and fall over themselves to surrender policies and funds for the Community. Ireland and Italy are already swimming in Community money. They are hooked on the drug and crave more. The benefits to France's swollen agriculture will always exceed any likely membership fee. Germany, guilt-ridden from the second world war and revelling in the rich opportunities provided for her factories, has always been ready to concede in the past.
We joined the Community on the basis of levies plus the 1 per cent. calculation of VAT. There is no moral reason for us to concede an increase, nor is there any sense


in it. The Prime Minister has said that we would be prepared to consider an increase in own resources if agricultural spending were brought under control, but after the latest agreement that is hardly the case, with reports predicting a surge of £2,000 million in extra expenditure on the common agricultural policy this year — an increase of more than 20 per cent. In a situation where those responsible for negotiating and discussing the deal are unable to put a figure on it, they are therefore by definition unable to claim that it is under control.
The Prime Minister has also said that we shall consider an increase if there is a fair deal on the budget. When that was first discussed, we talked about making a contribution towards the running costs—the administration—of the EEC. Those costs are 750 million ecu each year. The figure being bandied about in the press as the minimum rebated net contribution that we could get away with is 750 million ecu each year—the whole of the Community's running costs. It is hardly likely that we could accept that as the basis for considering an increase in own resources, especially when that figure can only increase as our GDP and Community expenditure rise; or perhaps as we are booby-trapped in further negotiations.
We have said, too, that we would support new policies within the Community, such as the entry of Spain and Portugal. We are told, however, that because Spain and Portugal are not the wealthiest members of the Community they would be net recipients. Britain is not one of the wealthiest members of the Community. There is no logic in saying that we should pay if Spain and Portugal are expected to receive. We do not receive rebates. Even if we were so generous, and were to have satisfactory answers to the poignant questions put earlier in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), Spain and Portugal will not commence Community membership until 1986. There will be a five-year transition period. The cost, at its most generous, will be 5 per cent. of existing own resources. We do not need to consider an increase in own resources at this stage on behalf of the membership of Spain and Portugal.
What about ESPRIT? We have received answers to parliamentary questions about it. It is paid for out of the Community budget at the moment. We do not need more money for that. We want to remove non-tariff barriers to trade. That is cost-free. We want a Community market in insurance and financial services. That is cost-free. We want further industrial co-operation between various firms in the Community. That can be done at a multilateral level by Governments and companies. It has nothing to do with the Commission. We do not want it to get its sticky fingers into that. It is cost-free for the Community, too. There are no policies that we should support that will cost the Community a single extra ecu.
Let us consider what would happen if there were an increase in Community own resources. Where would the money go? There are three possibilities. First, much of it could be wasted. Much money is at the moment. One should consider the report of the Court of Auditors. One should consider the 100 million ecu loss each year on olive oil and the leakage that is seeping into the snakeskin wallets of the Mafia. There could be more waste. Let us not forget that.
Second, there is a suggestion that such an increase could be spent on new policies. What new policies would be better funded by Brussels than by national Governments? I know that my friends on the other side of

the Chamber want regional and social policies to deal with unemployment. They are entitled to want that. Would they not rather work out those policies here than have the money and policies laundered and decided in the Berlaymont building in Brussels? Would it not be better if they did that themselves?
The third possibility is the answer to the question: What will the money be spent on? It will be spent on one thing — agriculture. That will happen, whatever we say. It will scoop the pool and take the money. Agriculture Ministers, whatever disciplines appear to be devised by Finance Ministers, will continue to solve their problems at the expense of other people and other programmes. There is no mechanism yet devised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire so brilliantly said, that would overcome that problem.
Of course, we must take account of the needs and wishes of our own farmers. The recent agricultural cuts will doubtless cause hardship. Those hardships will produce political imperatives requiring expenditure. There will be a slump in the price of cull cows, and the beef price will go down. There will be squalls and cries of anguish, and national Governments will be required to provide funds, and why not? There will be different hardships in different parts of the Community. It is better to devise national measures to finance the marginal difference in our agricultural economies than to resort to the hyperactive cash tills and blanket programmes of the Community.
Another reason has been advanced for an increase in own resources. It is the means of negotiating our current and future rebates. Why must we justify it in this way? When we joined the Community we were promised that agriculture, which was then running at 60 per cent. of expenditure, would fall to 40 per cent. of expenditure. It has not. When we joined the Community, we were told that if unacceptable situations arose, solutions would be found. They have arisen, and the solutions should be found. We have a moral right to cut our contribution, particularly because we have reached our present state through the vested interests of the majority of our partners voting for policies that will perpetuate and continue to perpetuate our disadvantage. They vote; we pay. We have a legal right. The House of Commons makes the decisions on how we spend our money. If we have an unsatisfactory situation within the treaty and the Community, we here have the legal right to change that situation. Our case for rebate is just. It is strange that some people consider that justice demands that concessions come from the innocent.
I do not underestimate the difficulty of the task confronting the Government in these negotiations. Everybody has had our money before; everybody is ranged against us—nine against one. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister has fought our battle as nobody else could have fought it. If there is a suggestion that there should he an increase in own resources, it is not the Government or the Council of Ministers that will decide, it is the House and the Parliaments of the several Community countries that will decide. If we are asked for an increase in own resources, it is a constitutional issue of the first magnitude.
Any increase in own resources to the European Community comes from a finite source of money. If the Community has more, we have less. If the Community has more, it will make the decision on more policies and we will decide on fewer. If the Community has more, the European institutions will have more power and we here will have less.
If we agree to an increase in own resources, it will be somewhat akin to loss of virginity. The indulgence could be habit-forming. The House — the mother of Parliaments — could be reduced to a discarded and barren whore.
I am against an increase in own resources. I stand on a platform which is against the increase. I put my standard on that platform. I hope that other Members will do likewise.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Follow that if you can.

Mr. Allan Rogers: It would be very difficult to do that. I am not sure what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was trying to tell the House, but he was using the most peculiar expressions.
I listened with both pleasure and astonishment to the Foreign Secretary, when he opened the debate. The Foreign Secretary of course, is disguised—I am sorry, described—as a master of detail and negotiation. My Freudian slip is probably more appropriate. I listened with pleasure because, frankly, I like a good laugh and I found the beginning of his contribution very humorous. I listened with astonishment because I came to realise that he actually believed what he was saying.
I in no way doubt his integrity, but one thing that I begin to doubt seriously is his ability and competence to do the job that has been entrusted to him. The record of the Foreign Secretary in this Parliament is absolutely appalling. For him to come back from Brussels with yet another failure does not surprise me at all. If we go over the sorry saga of the last few months—Grenada, where, for some days, he lost the Governor-General, GCHQ and the irreparable damage that he has done to us and to our image in Europe—we see that the Foreign Secretary is not competent to carry out the business of this country in negotiation with our European partners.
This is one of a series of sad failures on his part. His allusion to the petty cash that he lost on the way back from Brussels, as compared with the total success claimed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, simply illustrates what I am saying. Even our traditional friends and allies in Europe are turning away from us. Many people in Belgium, Holland and Denmark are asking what the matter is with Great Britain when it negotiates on such issues. The Foreign Secretary should resign. It is his function to prepare the details for the Prime Minister to go along to summits and make the deals. When the Prime Minister has gone along to summits, she has come back with failure after failure. The Foreign Secretary needs a rest, and the sooner the Prime Minister gives him a long rest on the Woolsack, the better for the country. We invite the Prime Minister to think of a better colleague to prepare the business of the country. I should not suggest the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who is lounging on his seat. Before he starts shouting across the Chamber, he should do a little homework.
When I was asked to speak, I did a little homework by looking up the statements made after all the summit meetings to which the Prime Minister has been going. I will not bore the House with long extracts, but the meetings start from Strasbourg in June 1979, Dublin,

Luxembourg, Maastricht, Luxembourg, Venice — one can go through them and find names that we had forgotten, such as the Lancaster House summit, when we had the presidency. In all these negotiations, in all these sad, sorry stories, every one of the statements is the same, along the lines of, "We fight for Britain, we are batting for Britain." On all these occasions, as on this one, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have scored "ducks" again.

Mr. Forth: I invite the hon. Gentleman, as I invited the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), to give us a catalogue of the successes of the Labour Government in their negotiations with the EEC, and then to compare that with the record of this Government, who have obtained magnificent rebates and who have taken us so far in reform of the European Community.

Mr. Rogers: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech, to which I listened with attention. I admired it. It was superb. The hon. Gentleman and I are old friends, so I was thrilled at what he said. He is right that this is part of a long battle, but when the Labour party was in power we were in the period of adjustment that followed our accession to the Community. After that there was a continual process of adjustment on many points.
Some Conservative Members criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who conducted our negotiations, for being intractable and difficult in his negotiations. He was batting for Britain then, and was castigated by the Conservative party. Now the Conservatives come back, supposedly batting for Britain, but are bringing back no runs for Britain. What do they expect us to do now?
One should put the matter into the context of the first meeting attended by the Prime Minister. I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) for reminding me that the Prime Minister, when she reported back from Strasbourg, said:
At last, therefore, we have an agreement to tackle the inequitably high contribution that Britain at present makes to the European budget. The time for decisions will be at the next Council.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), the then leader of the Labour party, in reply to the Prime Minister's statement said:
The right hon. Lady will have the support of the whole House in continuing the work that we began." —[Official Report, 26 June 1979; Vol 969, c. 288–9.]
The last Labour Government, therefore, began the work during the adjustment period.

Mr. Michael Colvin: rose——

Mr. Rogers: I will not give way. The reality of this sad and sorry situation, to which we have been led by an incompetent Foreign Secretary, is that we have been sold down the river again. Last year we were sold down the river on the fishing and budget negotiations. We were sold down the river on steel quotas. I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who may be elevated if my wishes come true, that he ought to judge the proposed quota system very carefully.
When quotas were imposed on the British steel industry, we kept to them, but the Italians and the Germans did not keep to theirs. The Italians are the only nation to have increased their steel production since the Davignon plan came into operation. The Germans, who were fined


for over-production under the old system, have not yet paid their fines, although there has been a renewal of the quota system in the last year.
I do not know what quota system will operate in the milk industry, because I am not an expert in farming. However, I advise farmers to be very wary of any system that is imposed from Brussels because, if it operates like the steel quota system——

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: rose——

Mr. Rogers: I will give way to any hon. Gentleman who has been present during the debate, but I will not give way to any Johnnie-come-lately to the debate.
The reality of the deal that has been brought back is that we have been asked to buy our own rebates. We have agreed in principle to increasing VAT contributions to 1·4 per cent. in 1986 and 1·6 per cent. 1988. Who will pay? It will be the taxpayer and the consumer who are now paying food prices far above world prices. The farmers,

too, will pay in this deal that is supposedly the first step towards the new European dimension. Who will pay? Saddest of all, the people on fixed incomes will pay, as will the 4 million unemployed and the pensioners, those who cannot adjust their incomes to keep pace with inflation. Who will gain? That was let out of the bag by the Foreign Secretary in his statement. The only positive thing he had to say, on the balance of the new equation, was that London had become the financial centre of Europe. Our manufacturing industry and our farming industry can be destroyed, as long as the friends of the Conservative party in the City of London can be looked after. As long as the Government can manipulate the place where the money can make money, but not jobs and happiness, they will keep us in Europe. This is a sad day because of the last summit. At the end of the day, many of our people on low incomes and our many unemployed will be the ones to pay.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: We must not under-estimate the difficulties faced by the Minister of Agriculture, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers in the farm negotiations. There have been some small successes, for which we must be grateful. The retention of the beef premium and the increase in the wool price are welcome, especially as some dairy farmers will have to turn to those enterprises.
However, we are deeply disappointed not only for the dairy farmers who will suffer but for the taxpayers who will have to pay the extra price for the jobs that will be lost on farms and in the ancillary industries. Asking our farmers to cut milk production by 150 million tonnes—milk that could be consumed in Britain—will mean that less feed will be sold in Britain, fewer tractors, less agricultural machinery, fewer foragers and fewer mowers, and the effect will be felt throughout the economy.
Many people find it incredible that France, which produces 170 per cent. of its dairy needs, has been asked to cut back by less than 3 per cent., compared with a 7 per cent. cut for our farmers who barely produce enough milk for our national needs. The stock answer to that point is that we are in something called the Common Market and, therefore, we must accept common responsibility for common surpluses. But are we really in a common market? Is there a common market in insurance and financial services? Are there really no trade barriers? Can a British microcomputer manufacturer go to France and sell his products to the French Government or to French local authorities?
If we really could do all those things, I would be happier with the agricultural package. As it is, the CAP is the only really common Common Market policy. Now British farmers are being asked to produce less milk than they can efficiently produce — less milk than this country can consume—because the French, the Dutch and the Danes produce more than they can consume.
An argument used by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday to justify the agricultural package was that dairy farmers were warned in 1980 and 1981 that they would be expected to cut back. I wish to remind the House of what has been said during the past two or three years. In June 1980, the then Secretary of State said that he would support proposals for greater responsibility for disposal of surpluses to be placed on those countries that produced the surpluses. As Britain contributed nothing to the surpluses, he said that he would oppose measures that would affect us.
In November 1980, the issue was debated again. During that debate on EEC milk production, both sides of the House agreed that it would be ridiculous to reduce British milk production, as we were not self-sufficient. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked how, at a time when we were not self-sufficient in food, we could tell British farmers that they should produce less. Now, however, we are being asked to do just that, without even properly examining the alternatives such as price reduction or a system of taking land out of commission— a system that operates very well in the United States. It would probably cost the taxpayer considerably less than the current proposals. That has hardly been touched on in the EEC negotiations.
I am not against the EEC. We as a nation have derived some huge benefits from the Common Market, along with the disadvantages. Our contributions, vast as they are, represent barely 0·5 per cent. of our gross national product, but it has to be recognised that our agricultural interests are totally incompatible with those of the other members, to which it would appear that our farmers have now been sacrificed.
The answer to the problem which has led to this situation certainly does not lie in the muddled policies of the Opposition, whose efforts to get a better deal out of the EEC make this Government's appear vastly successful by comparison. Nor does the answer lie in the increase in own resources to which we have so promptly agreed. The answer, I believe, lies in more national responsibility for surpluses by the nations that produce them, and more use of those surpluses within the Community to benefit Community consumers.
We currently export food at great cost to Russia and import billions of dollars' worth of animal feed from America. Instead, we should denature our surplus grain and sell it to our livestock farmers at export prices to help them and benefit the consumer. Surplus grain should feed British pigs, not Soviet citizens.
Overall, while I wish the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary success in pressing our case for a lower net contribution, the agricultural package can only be a source of great concern to our dairy farmers. Dairy farmers in my constituency are left not knowing whether to pour milk down the drain, whether to kill cows or feed them less, and not knowing what to do with the tonnes of cake they have on order. These are hard-working, efficient farmers who have taken the Government's advice and invested and grafted. Now they are to suffer, not because they produce more milk than we want but because continental farmers not only want our taxpayers to finance their over-production, and to have our markets to sell their surpluses to; they now also want our farmers to cut production so that they can sell us more.
They are like a huge, unhealthy, malignant cuckoo that has alighted in our nest and is determined to sit tight and feed off our taxpayers, our consumers and our farmers, and our Government are guilty of allowing them to get away with it. But the real tragedy is that the EEC, which was designed and set up to unite us and to heal old wounds, now itself threatens to divide us further.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and he, like many hon. Gentlemen, appeared to be putting a stronger and stronger case for taking the United Kingdom out of the EEC. That is the message that seems to be coming across and I am sure that it has been heard on the other side of the Channel as well. I think that all hon. Members recognise that changes in the EEC are inevitable and that pretty large changes will have to come very soon.
I certainly accept that there needs to be change in the CAP. The fact that the common agricultural policy is taking 70 per cent. of the budget is clearly ridiculous. Considering the peanuts that are going to regional policy, clearly what is happening now is not what was promised at the time of the referendum in 1975. The money going into the CAP is not being used in a sensitive and effective manner and I believe that there needs to be a total policy


re-think, aiming at a greater equalisation of wealth throughout the Community. The CAP must change, as part of a total policy re-think taking in all aspects of policy, and the changes must be made in a phased manner that does not cause unnecessary chaos and hardship, which is the danger that we are facing now.
Earlier today some figures were published in Cardiff relating to the contributions from Wales to the EEC over the last 10 years, from 1973 to 1982. The total contribution amounted to £736 million, according to this assessment. The receipts by Wales from the EEC in the same period amounted to £576 million, including all the various funds, leaving a shortfall of £160 million. That shortfall would he even larger if things like the regional contributions—which are not additional but are substitutes for money that should have come under other Acts of Parliament—were allowed for. The total shortfall taking that into account amounts to £539 million over this period, or £54 million per annum, and that is £1 per week for every family in Wales.
The point I underline is that Wales, on the recently published league table, is forty-sixth out of 54 regions in the EC in terms of wealth. We are at the poverty end of this league table, yet we have to make that sort of contribution. That underlines the stupidity of the present situation. We want to see strategic budget changes and more money going to regional policy. The money that goes to finance regional policy should be additional to that which is spent under existing Acts and should not be a substitute form of finance. The framework of the Industry Act 1972 is inadequate for ensuring that money for regional policy is provided in sufficient measure.
In the past two years the area which I represent in part, the county of Gwynedd, has received ½ per cent. and 1 per cent. of the money directed to Wales for industrial development. It is amongst the highest levels of unemployment and net outward migration and the lowest per capita personal income in Britain. If the EC funds are to be increased in the way that has been discussed, they must be used much more effectively than at present. We have had harmonisation of the shape of eggs and the insides of chickens, for example, but we need a harmonisation that will bring a better distribution of the wealth within the EC and an equalisation of per capita personal income.
Milk production is of great concern to Wales, as is the impact that the changes to which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agreed will have on the dairy sector in Wales. In 1980, Welsh dairy farmers produced 1,575 million litres of milk. By 1983, production had increased to 1,772 million litres. The increase was more than 10 per cent. over those three years and it was deliberately encouraged.
Some parts of Wales will be hit particularly hard by the changes which were announced over the past weekend. For example, the county of Dyfed produces half of the total production of milk in Wales. Of the 5,291 specialist dairy holdings in Wales, 3,269 of them are in Dyfed. There are twice as many milking cows in Wales in relation to the population as there are in England. The absolute level of milk production is greater in Wales than in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Milk as a component of GNP in Wales is over twice as important as in Britain as a whole. I contrast the settlement for the milk sector with that for the cereal sector. The 1 per cent. cut in price will do nothing to deal with the EC's chronic wheat surpluses.
In the statement made yesterday the dairy settlement was described by Conservatives in various unfavourable terms. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) described it as a "feeble settlement". The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon (Sir P. Mills) said that the
effect on the very small dairy producer in the wet areas will sometimes be disastrous".
That is exactly what it will be in parts of Wales. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) commented
that the result of the settlement will be larger and more expensive surpluses, the impoverishment of the dairy farmer and the continued enrichment of the cereal farmer." — [Official Report, 2 April 1984; Vol 57, c. 665–666.]
That is what we are fearful of in Wales. We are very dependent on dairy fanning, and cereal production plays a much smaller part of our farming. The settlement is directly contrary to the interests of Wales.
There has been the lack of strategy for milk over recent years. A few years ago farmers were being encouraged to leave milk; they were being bought out. They were then allowed to drift back into dairy production. At that stage Ministry experts were encouraging them to produce more milk and the result was a 10 per cent. increase from 1980 to 1983. The dairy farmers are now facing a bleak future.
Farmers in Wales invested from 1980 to 1983 so that they could contribute effectively to the increased production. They borrowed to do so — that was the advice that they received — and now they are facing disaster because of the changes that the Government have conceded. It has been assessed that between a fifth and a sixth of Welsh dairy farmers could be forced out of business as a result of the changes. Over 1,000 dairy farmers in Wales are going on to the rocks.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The plight of the Welsh dairy farmers is one that must give us all great concern. As the hon. Gentleman and others have said, the dairy farmers have been encouraged over the past few years to produce more and more milk. If they have increased their production, they did so against a background which should have led them to be perfectly well aware that the day of reckoning was bound to come. The warnings were written up plainly that the lunacy could not continue. To speak as if they were being led down the road to the day of reckoning is rather to mislead opinion on this issue.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister conceded yesterday that circumstances had encouraged farmers to develop dairy production. It is not good enough to blame the farmers for responding to pressures from all directions. There is now talk in Wales of blockades of tractors to express dissatisfaction with what is happening. That is a direct result of the corner into which farmers have been driven by the Government's settlement. The ridiculous thing is that we have not yet reached self-sufficiency in milk products in these islands. If there is a milk lake, why not make the cuts in areas that produce too much instead of hitting Wales at a time and in a way that will be so devastatingly hard to bear?
The contrast with Ireland is stark. Ireland succeeded in achieving a special package. A good friend of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), the MEP for North Wales, Miss Beata Brookes, is reported in the Western Mail as saying that she had sent telegrams of protest to the Secretary of State for Wales, the Minister of Agriculture and the EEC agricultural Commissioner over milk. The report said that she was


upset that concessions had been made to Irish dairy producers without equal consideration for those in Wales.
Concessions were made because the Irish had a voice in the negotiations. Where was the voice of Wales in those negotiations. Where was the voice of Wales in the Council of Ministers to defend the interests of dairy farming in Wales, which is as vital to Wales as it is to Ireland? The Irish had a voice; we did not. They have 15 MEPs; we have four, although the size of our populations is identical. When the chips are down and negotiations take place, because we do not have a voice, our farmers suffer. They will go out of business as a result. The lesson is clear for the people of Wales.
An editorial in The Irish Times states:
The eleventh-hour agreement in Brussels, and the concession to Ireland, were a recognition of the Republic's national interest. There was an appreciation that the farming economy here differed widely from the rest of Europe, and that any serious alteration would be harmful to the whole economic fabric of the nation.
The Irish nation has been considered. The Welsh nation has not. Absentee representatives do not put our interests high enough when the stakes are discussed.
The loss of income to the rural areas not only involves the 10 per cent. loss to farmers. It has a spin-off effect through the countryside. In many rural areas of western Wales subsistance farming is the pattern. We are not talking about the fat pigs and cows of eastern England. We are talking about the economy of areas where shops and schools will close and buses will stop as a result of the cuts. The domino effect will travel throughout the Welsh countryside as a result of deliberate Government policy.
We seek assurances. In the long term we need a change in EC economic policy and in the CAP structure, but immediately we need assurances that a longer transitional period will be allowed to permit dairy farmers to adjust. Quotas should not be set in a uniform manner. We must have flexibility so that quotas are applied on a farm-by-farm basis. We need a low-interest loan fund to help farmers in difficulty over this period.
We also want an assurance that the Welsh Office, members of which have again been absent from the Chamber for this debate, will take a part in defending the interests of Welsh farmers. We want an assurance that the National Farmers Union of Wales has been, and will be, involved in negotiations.
As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, the Minister let the cat out of the bag when he said that one compensation arising from recent negotiations, was the benefit that would go to the London financial centre. That is the lesson that comes home to Wales. Our national interest has been sold down the river for the benefit of the City of London.

Mr. William Powell: Those of us who have sat through the past four hours of debate recognise that it has been of very high quality and that most of the important points have been discussed. I wish to concentrate on two matters, both of which go to the heart of our present relationship with Europe.
The first concerns surpluses within the Community. With all the romantic connotations of his constituency, one might expect the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) to take a rather romantic attitude

to things. Alas, however, when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) put the crucial question to him about how to dispose of surpluses, he was unable to answer. The hon. Gentleman asked for more time to adjust which inevitably means greater surpluses.
Surpluses have to be disposed of and the cost of their disposal has become the cancer within the Community. There can be no ducking that. Impressive though their analysis was, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made one factual error. In fact, we are in surplus in dairy products.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Powell: Moreover, the surplus is increasing.

Mr. Oppenheim: rose——

Mr. Powell: It is not so great as in some European countries, but we are in surplus.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Powell: No, I will not give way. We are in surplus in liquid milk.

Mr. Oppenheim: rose——

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) is clearly not giving way. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) must not persist.

Mr. Powell: Taking into account the butter that we have specially decided to import from New Zealand, we are also in surplus in butter fats. That surplus, too, is increasing. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Oppenheim: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Overall, taking all dairy products into account, we are not in surplus. Although we are in surplus in some types of dairy product such as butter fat, in others we are in deficit. Overall, we are not in surplus in dairy products. That is a fact.

Mr. Powell: The Minister has said that our dairy produce is 108 per cent. of our requirements and rising. That suggests to me that we are in surplus, even including the New Zealand element which is also important. In any event, we are part of one common market. We cannot belong to a common market and then ignore its existence. That must be taken into account, as well as our domestic situation.
The real tragedy of farming policy in the Community is that it does not provide the one thing that it was supposed to provide for farmers—an income comparable with that which can be earned in urban surroundings—because 60 per cent. of the cost of the CAP is spent on the storage and disposal of surpluses. Therefore, there can be no solution to our problems in the Community until we can solve the problem of surpluses. Those who fail to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East put to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber about how to dispose of the surpluses must therefore concede that that question cannot be avoided.
Unfortunately, I detect that there are still those who seek to pile surplus upon surplus. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and of the Minister of State, that they have tried mightily to come to


terms with the question of surpluses. They have not totally succeeded. We still have a large surplus. We may manage to dispose of some of it on world markets this year, but we may be left with quantities of dairy produce which we are unable to dispose of. We must devise policies which will permanently dispose of the problem. It is the cancer which is eating away at the budget side and the agricultural sector, and there is no avoiding it.
To those who contemplate an increase in own resources, I have to say that if the purpose of increasing own resources is merely to allow greater flexibility on the agriculture budget, that will not solve the essential structural difficulty.
The other main theme of the debate was introduced by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He referred to the paradox which is central to our relationship with Europe. He talked of the incompatibility of our perceptions, our economies and our political and constitutional arrangements. In contrast, he talked of Europe as a crucible of humanity to which we are inextricably bound. How right he is. That paradox is central to our whole unhappy relationship with Europe.
Over the years, we have pretended to a special relationship with the United States. We have an utterly necessary alliance with the United States, and relations between the leaders of both countries, of both parties, have been excellent. But our true special relationship is with Europe, although we have been unable to work it out satisfactorily. One of the tasks that my generation will face in the coming years and decades will be to try to establish a satisfactory relationship with the countries of mainland Europe — a relationship not bedevilled by the cancer growing in our midst.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will have the support of us all as they try to come to terms with those problems. It may take them longer than we would wish. There may be further depressing debates in this House as the date of the solution to the problems is postponed again, but the problems must be solved. We must all show patience if we are to achieve a solution which will enable us to develop the satisfactory relationship to which the right hon. Member for Down, South so tantalisingly alluded.

Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), said that it had become a convention in the House that anyone returning from Europe claimed to have achieved triumph and success. Any hon. Member who cares to look back over the many speeches that I made in the previous Parliament replying to debates on the Finance Bill will find that I could be thought to have adopted a convention of saying that the House had had an excellent debate. However, I am not merely making a conventional statement when I say that tonight's debate has been outstanding. There have been a number of first-class Back-Bench speeches which have contributed to the development of our thinking about Europe. It is a tribute to the quality of those speeches that for long periods there were very few interruptions from the Government Benches.
However, I must make one partisan point. It is because we have had such a successful debate of a high standard

that one must place on record at the outset regret that the debate was shortened by half an hour by the frivolous and vexatious use of Divisions of the House by minority parties. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) said that we should try to pursue the negotiations in a spirit of good will. I understand what the hon. Gentleman meant. It is true that the other Prime Ministers who emerged from the closet in which they were held with our Prime Minister did not appear to have been impressed by the rationality and powerful logic of the British case, nor convinced by the sweet reasonableness with which it was put forward.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the way in which the negotiations were pursued, but if he and his colleagues from the alliance parties wish to pursue what I understand to be their grievance about the allocation of time, it would be much better done in ways that did not detract from our opportunity to debate the future of Europe and to hear serious speeches such as those that we have heard since we completed that series of Divisions.
I must also tell the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber that it would be of interest to Labour Members if he were to inquire of his colleagues in the SDP where they have been this evening. This is the third debate on European affairs in the House since the turn of the year, and SDP Members have completed a hat trick of not contributing to any debate, nor even of being present for most of them. It calls in question the rhetoric of those SDP Members who are fond of saying that they, and they alone, hold the key to the vision and the ideal of the future of Europe.
One striking feature of the debate has been the lack of support from either side of the House for the package that looks like emerging from the negotiations in which Ministers have been engaged. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), from the sedentary position which he has maintained all evening, says that that is not true—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I understand that it was not the hon. Member for Wirral, South who said that. However, of those Conservative Members who managed to raise themselves into a standing position, only the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) could be described as supporting the package. From all other quarters there has been criticism.
I say that not in a partisan sense. Two of the outstanding speeches of the debate came from Conservative Members —the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) —both of whom deployed devastating arguments against any increase in own resources. I hope that I will not cast a permanent shadow on the prospects of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire if I say that he made an excellent and refreshing speech. My only criticism of his speech is that at the end he made a completely convincing case against an increase in own resources and then said that he had an open mind on the matter. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read his speech in Hansard tomorrow and then to recognise that, in the light of his speech, he cannot escape the logic of his position. He is obliged not to have an open mind but to oppose an increase in own resources.
The hon. Member for Wells deployed the case for Britain with great reasonableness and lucidity. I am tempted to speculate—this will probably cast not just a shadow but a positive pall over the hon. Gentleman's prospects—to what extent the British case might have


been advanced in negotiations had it been maintained with the clarity and rationality which the hon. Gentleman showed in his speech.
There is a clear gulf between the approach of those hon. Members and that of Ministers. Both hon. Members and several others who have spoken in the debate have considered the case for an increase in own resources on its merits; having done so, they were driven to the inevitable conclusion that there is no case for increasing EC own resources. However, Ministers have now trapped themselves in the position that they no longer regard the increase in own resources as a matter to be judged on its merits, but as a bargaining chip to be surrendered in exchange for concessions. We heard of a further concession which is now being entered against that bargaining chip which makes it more difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to withhold the bargaining chip, namely, the British refund for 1983.
This is a new development. Hitherto we have been assured that if the rebate was not paid by the deadline of 31 March — a deadline chosen by the Government themselves—then action would be taken to safeguard the British position. Those were the words that were used several times in the period up to 31 March. It is barely a month since the Foreign Secretary chided me for suggesting that there was no realistic possibility of the rebate being paid by the deadline. I take it that the Foreign Secretary will not dispute the issue with me now. The deadline is past and the rebate has not been paid. We can all agree on that and that is common ground between the Front Benches.
There is not even a promissory note that the rebate will be paid. There is no guarantee that even at Fontainebleau they will obtain the rebate. Yet a curious change has occurred in the rhetoric. During the period in which the Foreign Secretary was assuring us that there was a realistic possibility that the deadline would be met, the air was heavy with threats of swift and sever vengence if the deadline was not met. Now the deadline has passed and these threats of vengeance have evaporated.
I remember distinctly the appearance of the Prime Minister when she returned from Brussels. She came to the House and gave us one of those magnificent impersonations of Boadicea rampant. She assured us not just once but three times that action would be taken to safeguard the British position if the deadline was not met. In case anybody was in any doubt about what she meant, she spelt out previous occasions on which member states had withheld contributions to the EC.
The next day there was a sudden pax in that position. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and a few confreres appeared to have succeeded in unhitching the chariot of Boadicea. Unforeseen, unanticipated treaty obligations were discovered. There were legal and diplomatic complexities which no one had thought of explaining to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary when they were threatening to safeguard the British position. All of a sudden the deadline has passed and we find that no action is to be taken on the failure of the EC to pay our rebate by the deadline.
The House will be aware that the view of the Opposition is that we should withhold contributions up to the amount represented by the rebate which has not been paid to us and to which we are entitled. Let me say in a spirit of

conciliation and in the non-partisan mood that has marked much of the debate that I recognise that there is an alternative case, argued eloquently by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, that such an action would merely raise temperatures and exacerbate the situation.
I must point out that the Government have chosen the worst of all possible worlds by threatening to withhold if the deadline was not met and then backing off from the threat. They have put themselves in the position which is the classic failure of any negotiator: they have bluffed, and their bluff has been called and it has been seen to be empty. For that reason when they return to the negotiations they will find their position weakened.
Now we are told that they will not withhold contributions but that they will not agree to an increase in own resources until the rebate is paid. The bargaining chip of increasing own resources becomes weakened by having yet another concession attached to it.
I listened with great care to the Foreign Secretary's speech. I noticed that at no time during the half hour for which he addressed the House did he attempt to make the case for an increase in own resources on its merits. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) is to reply to the debate. It was he who in the House in February 1983 said that no such case could be advanced with conviction. When he replies, I ask him to address his mind to the merits of an increase in own resources, irrespective of its utility as a bargaining chip.
The sums involved are large. For 1986, the Government have accepted, subject to agreement and budgetary balance, an increase to 1·4 per cent., an increase of 40 per cent. at the present VAT level. That represents an increase of £675 million per annum. They have accepted in principle after that a target increase to 1·6 per cent., a 60 per cent. increase. That represents an increase per annum of £1 billion. President Gaston Thorn has described those increases as unacceptable, and many hon. Members will agree with that description, except that President Gaston Thorn regards them as unacceptable because they are not big enough. He wants to see an immediate increase to 2 per cent.
He has shown great moderation because I understand that the extreme position of the Liberal party is to increase own resources not just to 2 per cent. but—if the detail of the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber has been correctly reported to me — to something over 2 per cent. , which would represent over one fifth of the total tax take from VAT in the British isles.
I strongly urge the hon. Member to make sure when he stands in the European elections that he figures prominently in his election address that commitment to double the VAT paid by his electors to Brussels. If he does not, we have ways to ensure that his electorate gets to hear about it.

Mr. Johnston: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. He will perhaps concede that when I said that an increase of that order was desirable, it was to make possible an increased research programme, an increased regional programme directed at jobs and an increased social programme directed at helping ageing industries.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is calling on us to double our VAT payments. The question that will be asked by his electors in the Highlands and Islands is what


evidence there is from the experience of the EEC that if we doubled our payments, that would result in a doubling of the regional and social funds rather than a doubling of expenditure on agriculture.

Sir Anthony Meyer: rose——

Mr. Cook: I will not give way. I agreed to curtail my remarks to allow another hon. Member to speak in the debate.
The size of the figures are such that they exceed the sums being debated as the refund for the British budget contribution; £675 million in 1986, which is more than the £600 million offered by Chancellor Kohl at the summit, and £1 billion thereafter, more than the £737 million, which represents the top demand by the British Government. In other words, we are being asked to strike a very odd bargain indeed. To get our refund, we shall agree to increase payments by more than the refund that we were to get when we agreed to increase own resources.
From where will that money come? The hon. Member for Wells made the pertinent point that we live under a Government—of which we on these Benches are well aware — who are committed to cutting public expenditure and taxation. There is no provision in the public expenditure White Paper for this increase, so what further cuts in domestic public expenditure or what widening of the tax base do the Government propose to raise this money, now that they have brought within the VAT net the fish and chips and do-it-yourself joinery shops of the nation?
If we are to be confronted with such a widening of the tax base or a further cut in domestic expenditure to make room for this additional payment to Brussels, we shall have to look very hard indeed at the bargain that we obtained with this bargaining chip.
That brings us to the heart of many speeches made tonight — the agricultural settlement reached over the weekend. We have been assured by the Government that effective control of Community expenditure, particularly agricultural expenditure, is one of the conditions that they will extract for this precious bargaining chip.
We have before us the agricultural settlement of last weekend. There is one outstanding feature of the settlement. It is that it will not result in a reduction in expenditure. It will not even stabilise expenditure. It will result in an additional increase in expenditure. I asked the Foreign Secretary how much it would be. He replied by saying that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had told us yesterday. I am sorry to say that he was mistaken about that. The Minister said yesterday:
With regard to the cost of the package, the same position arises every year. One can never tell what it will be, because one does not know what will be the amount of money needed to implement the intervention prices. The hon. Gentleman should know that that can never be quantified."[Official Report, 2 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 672.]
That statement does not smack of firm budget discipline. There is no effective control of expenditure embodied in that statement by the Minister only yesterday.
However, the House is fortunate in that there are other commentators who will put a price on the package. For instance, there is the Commissioner for agriculture, Mr. Poul Dalsager. He has stated that the additional cost of the settlement at the weekend will be £500 million per annum over and above the estimate provided for agriculture expenditure. Mr. Dalsager is the man who complained a couple of months ago that some Governments seem to

think that reforming the CAP is a matter of ordering smaller oysters and a cheaper brand of champagne, and the Agriculture Council responded, to his irritation, by ordering larger oysters and a more expensive brand of champagne.
Moreover, that increase of £500 million comes on top of an agriculture budget that is already overspent. President Gaston Thorn said a fortnight before the weekend settlement that even without an additional increase in expenditure, the agriculture budget would be overspent by £900 million to £1,200 million. Let us add to that the £500 million cast away last Saturday and Sunday. We are left with an overspend of £1,500 million to £2,000 million, on a budget that started with a base of less than £10,000 million. If such an increase represents the Foreign Secretary's understanding of the effective control of expenditure, I can well understand why, having achieved that effective control of expenditure, it is necessary for him to agree to an increase in own resources to pay for it.
The remarkable feature about the increase is that the Agriculture Council arrived at the settlement when, by common consent, the EEC is going bankrupt. What firmer budget discipline could we hope to impose upon the Agriculture Ministers than the fact that if they do not agree to contain prices, the cheques will bounce at the bank some time in the summer or autumn? Yet they still come up with a 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. increase.
The Foreign Secretary said that that increase represented a start in controlling expenditure on the CAP; that it was a first step towards effective control. However, he also said that we have a long way to go. I am sure that every hon. Member will agree with him on this point, if on nothing else—we have a long way to go from the package to effective control.
That being so, it is surely logical for the House to wait until we arrive at the point to which there is a long way to go before we agree to any increase in own resources that will relax the discipline imposed on Agriculture Ministers last week.

Mr. Jackson: I know that the hon. Member likes to rise above vulgar detail, but perhaps he might like to recognise that a large part of these additional costs comes from changes in the MCA system of the kind for which he has been pressing, revaluations of the green currencies.

Mr. Cook: Unfortunately, that is precisely not the change for which I have been pressing. Everybody else is going to change their MCA but in Great Britain there will not be a revaluation of the kind that we have requested. The 5 per cent. tax on food prices will remain in Britain but nowhere else.
I conclude this passage on agriculture by quoting the words of the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. I am sure that those on the Government Benches will not accuse me of partiality if I quote what their own Minister has said. As the negotiations were proceeding, the Minister made a statement that is worth repeating and putting in the record. He said,
We must continue to live within our means.
He added—and hon. Members will recall that this came before the summit in Brussels—
But if the Summit were to tell us that more money was available, that would be different.
In those two short sentences the Minister of Agriculture summed up with a brilliant succinctness the case against


agreeing to an increase in own resources. If it is the case that the situation will be different if we gave them more money, surely that points more compellingly than any other argument against increasing own resources until we have demonstrated that we have arrived at the effective control of expenditure that, the Foreign Secretary agrees, we have still a long way to go to reach.
We are at the moment debating the outcome of the third summit in just under a year. The first summit managed to agree an agenda for the next two summits. The last two summits have been unable to agree even on an agenda for the subsequent summit. There is a record of failure over the past nine months.
What is particularly disappointing about that failure is that the crisis in the Community is also an opportunity, an opportunity to secure the fundamental reform that, all too plainly, the Community needs, an opportunity to find the new sense of direction that, all too plainly, the Community has lost. That opportunity is now being frittered away. It is quite clear that, whatever fudge emerges at Fontainebleau, or between now and Fontainebleau, it will not include any fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. It will not include any increased expenditure on the regional and social funds; indeed, we may well find over the next few months those funds curtailed in order to provide additional expenditure on the rollercoaster of agriculture. That new direction will not include any new initiative to tackle the problem of mass unemployment throughout Europe because three times——

Mr. Porter: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Cook: No, I will not give way. I am concluding my remarks in order to let the Minister reply.
Three times the Prime Ministers of Europe have met and on none of those occasions have they produced a single constructive, positive idea to reduce unemployment in their countries.
One thing is quite clear. When that fudge emerges, although none of these fundamental changes will be included in it, it will include a requirement on Britain to pay even more to the EEC, in order that it may go on as before, spending that money on an agricultural policy that has never suited the British consumer and which, we learn from Members on the Government Benches, now does not suit the British farmer either.
The Government Front Bench have failed. They know that they have failed. We can tell that they know that they have failed by the timid refuge that they have sought tonight behind the motion on the Adjournment of the House. Those on the Government Benches know that we pressed them to put down a substantive motion to which we could propose an amendment that would argue our case, in order that the House might come to a considered and reasoned view. They have avoided the pressure. They have offered us only a motion——

Mr. Porter: Rubbish.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish". I would invite him to look at the Order Paper. If he does so, he will find that the House is debating tonight merely a motion to adjourn the House.
If we are to be faced only with the miserable device of an Adjournment motion, and that is to be the only way that

we can express our view, we shall divide the House. We do so not so that the House may adjourn, but so that we can record our dissatisfaction at the Government's failure to reach an agreement that safeguards British interests, our condemnation of their retreat from withholding, and our determination that out of this failure there shall not arise any projects by which the Government may come to the House and suggest that there should be an increase of own resources to Brussels, to be paid by the British people.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) concluded his speech with a rousing condemnation of the Government for not allowing an Opposition amendment to be put down on which they could have expressed their views and divided the House. He has a nerve to suggest that the Government could be condemned on that basis. In the past two debates that the House has had on the European Community, the Opposition have put down amendments in both cases. On the first occasion, the amendment called on the House to reject any suggestion of an increase in own resources. When the House came to vote, the amendment was defeated by over 300 votes to approximately 60. Where all the Labour Members were, and why they had failed to come to express their view, the House has never had the benefit of knowing. On the last occasion that the House debated the Community, the hon. Gentleman again put down an amendment, calling on the Government to withhold our contributions to the European Community if the refunds were not paid, and that was in advance of there being a threat that that would happen. When that debate ended, the hon. Gentleman did not even divide the House.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. The quality of the contributions from the Back Benches has been very high. I also agree with his rebuke to the SDP. Its members have failed to be present during the debate. It is a party that, although small, contains not only a former Foreign Secretary but a former President of the Commission, but in the past three debates neither of them made any attempt to contribute their views, and those of their party, on one of the most crucial issues before the United Kingdom. That shows an extraordinary negation of duty and of their responsibilities. Even the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) does not jump to the defence of the party.
There has been a wide spectrum of contributions to the debate. The House listened carefully, as it always does, to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He expressed the view, which the House received in a thoughtful fashion, that, while there was no basic incompatibility between Britain and Europe in the geographical and historical context, there was, nevertheless, a fundamental incompatibility between Britain and the EC. I listened with care to the right hon. Gentleman, although this is a view that he has expressed often before. However, his proposal that there is something that cannot be remedied in the relationship between Britain and the Community and that that shows a basic incompatibility, cannot be sustained.
Perhaps the most important explanation of why in the 10 years since our membership there have been successive negotiations, and attempts to change the way that the Community operates from the point of view of the United Kingdom, is not because of a basic incompatibility in the


concept of the Community, but arises out of the fact that we were not a member of the Community when it first began, and were not present when the present system of own resources was negotiated.
One of our fundamental problems has been that of trying to change the rules and regulations of a Community of which we could have been a founder member—an opportunity of which, for various reasons, we chose not to take advantage. One cannot help but recollect the remark made by Alfonso, a medieval king of Spain: "If I had been present at the creation, I would have had some useful hints for the better organisation of the universe." That is a view which could equally be expressed by those countries that have joined the Community since its inception.
The hon. Member for Livingston and his hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—

Mr. Porter: It is not for me to explain the views of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). As I understood it. he was trying to be helpful to the Government by indicating that, in his view, the arrangement reached between the agriculture Ministers was a fundamental shift which had occurred as a result of the persistence of the Prime Minister, and he was offering a new view from his new position in Northern Ireland. Perhaps my right hon. Friend is misunderstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Rifkind: No, I freely acknowledge that with much of what the right hon. Member for Down, South said I happily agreed, and I shared his interpretation. The remarks I was making related to the suggested incompatibility of Britain with the European Community; that is a point that the right hon. Gentleman has held all along with complete consistency from the beginning of the debate.
The hon. Member for Livingston, on several occasions, I am bound to say, has sought to misinform and mislead the House. Only last week he waxed indignant when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that the United Kingdom was going to refuse to pay an advance of £100 million demanded by the Commission. The hon. Gentleman, with great indignation, said that that was a worthless gesture, because the sum that the United Kingdom was declining to pay would in any event, according to him, fall due a few days later, last Sunday, on 1 April. I can only advise him that, in future, when that date, of all dates, is recommended to him, he should treat it with special caution; because he was wrong on that occasion, and in a substantial way.
Not only would the sum have fallen due in some three weeks' time, but the action of my right and learned Friend and of the Government was fully vindicated two days later when the Commission withdrew the application for an advance, not only from the United Kingdom, but from other member states of the Community. Having sought to mislead the House only last week, the hon. Gentleman might have done the House the service to which it is entitled, and apologised for the misinformation that he gave on that occasion.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister has made a point which is perfectly correct, in that I understood that it was an advance payment of VAT, paid not on 1 April, which I did not say, but on 2 April. It was intended to be an

advance payment of a customs levy due on 20 April. fully concede that the Foreign Secretary was standing up firmly, resolutely and determinedly for a full fortnight, which I had not allowed for in my calculation. If the Minister seeks to suggest that that was a worthwhile, and not a worthless, gesture, he will surely recognise that on Friday last week the Commission announced that it did not need our money anyway, so who was impressed by our withholding it?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has spent some time admitting that he was wrong last week. It is a pity that he could not have admitted that he misled the House in his own speech, rather than having to have it drawn out of him like a tooth that needs to be extracted.
His hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), who wound up in the last debate on the European Community, also sought on that occasion to create an atmosphere of doom and despondency within the House. She made a prediction then that the Government were going to make some sort of soggy compromise at the Brussels summit. When the Government showed that they were standing absolutely firm by the national interest, she and her hon. Friends turned to accusing the Government of intransigence and rigidity. I am bound to say that to expect objectivity from the Labour party on our European Community negotiations would be like expecting a cannibal to be objective in a lecture on vegetarianism.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister assist the House and the country by answering two questions? First, when will we obtain our rebate; and, secondly, what compensation, if any, will be paid to farmers in my constituency who will have to slaughter their cows?

Mr. Rifkind: Those are somewhat different questions, and I shall come to them later if I can. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no dispute about our entitlement to a refund—it is the date of payment that is in dispute.
The Leader of the Opposition, who I am glad to see in his place, when he spoke after the Brussels summit and sought to interrogate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, made the most astonishing suggestion. He said:
Is it not the case that, nearly nine months after the Stuttgart summit, the Prime Minister is now even further away from securing agreements to end the injustice of the British budget deficit". — [Official Report, 21 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 1050.]
I do not know whether that question was drafted for him by the hon. Member for Livingston or whether it was the product of the right hon. Gentleman's fevered imagination. All that I can say is that he was gloriously and outrageously wrong. If he does not believe me, he need only ask the Prime Minister or Head of Government of any other member state. If the right hon. Gentleman needs to be educated, I am happy to respond to that request. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends exactly what the Government have achieved in the nine months since Stuttgart.
As an aperitif, I shall comment on the achievements of the Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We must have a proper basis of comparison. During five years of Labour Government, there was much sound and fury, that produced nothing. Not only did the Labour Government alienate every one of our Community partners; they did not return with a single, solitary ecu of refund for the United Kingdom; nor did they achieve a single, solitary reform of the budgetary system.
Let us compare that with what the Government have already achieved on the budget deficit since the Stuttgart summit. First, the Community has now agreed quite unanimously that it is necessary for the future that the burden of supporting the Community's expenditure should take into account the relative prosperity of member states. That principle was not accepted until after the Stuttgart summit. It was the first achievement that the Government can claim. The second achievement that we can legitimately claim is that there is now unanimous acceptance that solution to the budgetary problem must not rely on annual haggles and crises, but that there should be a lasting system that, in a proper and acceptable way, will meet the United Kingdom's requirements.
The third achievement is the unanimous acceptance by all the member states that in future the proper way to deal with the British budget problem is not by finding new artificial forms of expenditure, but by reducing the contributions of the United Kingdom to the Community's finances. That is the third achievement that this Government have to their credit.
The fourth achievement is agreement by our colleagues in the Community that, in devising a system for the future, a Community not of 10 but of 12 should be taken into account, in order to anticipate the consequences of the enlargement of the Community. The fifth achievement is an agreement on the sum that is to be paid to the United Kingdom, which has now been narrowed to a gap of only 250 million ecu.
If the Leader of the Opposition does not believe that all that adds up to the most dramatic progress that has been achieved in many years in the resolution of the United Kingdom budgetary problem, I can only say that his understanding of logic explains why he considers that his total climb-down and abject surrender on the Elgin marbles should be considered a triumph of negotiating skill.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many ecus net were paid into the budget in the last five years of the Labour Government and how many ecus have been paid into the budget in the five years of his Government?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that Britain's net unadjusted contribution has continued to increase since our membership began. What the Labour Government tried to do was to negotiate a formula that would rectify that situation. They in fact negotiated a formula that had not the slightest effect on our budgetary burden.

Mr. Marlow: Now that we have finished with the history, could my hon. Friend concentrate on answering the very important question asked by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and several other hon. Members during this debate? What justification, if any, can there be for an increase in own resources, and what will the money be spent on? Every hon. Member who has spoken this evening thinks that the only thing the money can be spent on is agriculture.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will be well aware that the question of an increase in own resources need be addressed if, and only if, there is agreement on the two

fundamental questions that the Community is addressing at the present time. One is the control of agricultural expenditure and the other is an acceptable solution to the British budgetary problem. The arguments that have been used in support of an increase in own resources, as I am sure my hon. Friend must know, include the enlargement of the Community; any increase in the regional and social funds—the Government have said that they are prepared to support some increase in the regional and social funds — and new policies of a kind similar to ESPRIT, although ESPRIT itself has already been covered.

Mr. Budgen: Would my hon. Friend please explain exactly what is required to improve the agricultural side of the deal so as to make acceptable conditions that would give rise to an application to this House for an increase in own resources?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will be aware that so far the Community has agreed, first, on the principle that finance should determine expenditure—a principle first enunciated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in his speech in The Hague some years ago. That is now unanimously agreed. Secondly, it has been accepted that guidelines must be laid down both for agricultural expenditure and for total expenditure, and it is agreed that the Community and the Commission should bring forward specific proposals to turn these principles into firm budgetary procedures that will control the expenditure of the Community. That is the essential requirement as the Government see it.
The hon. Member for Livingston and his right hon. and hon. Friends have been asked on a number of occasions to indicate what their policy is on the development of the Community. They have been reluctant to do so, but we have had a document produced by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and published in New Socialist in which he outlines his vision of the future of Europe. I may say that it conflicts on a number of material points with a speech made by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) at the Dorchester Hotel on 28 February. It may be significant that the Leader of the Opposition expresses his views in New Socialist while the deputy Leader of the Opposition expresses his views in a speech at the Financial Times conference. There are interesting contrasts between the two.
The Leader of the Opposition says that we must preserve our right to withdraw from the Community. The deputy Leader of the Opposition says that it would be
deeply against our interests to withdraw.
Which is correct? The Leader of the Opposition states that the CAP "is intolerable" and has to be replaced. The deputy Leader of the Opposition states:
I am not suggesting that the CAP can be abandoned.…Nor can we guarantee and support farm incomes by the subsidy system that proved so expensive in pre-EEC Britain.
Who speaks for the Labour party, and what is the policy that that party is putting to the British people?
In his interesting article the Leader of the Opposition states that, from within the Community, if the Socialist countries co-ordinate their economic reflation,
We have to acknowledge the right of a country which pursues policies for full employment to protect itself against the effects of policies in other countries which do not.
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman wishes to recreate the industrial tariff barriers, the pulling down of which was one of the Community's finest achievements.
The most dramatic and absurd proposal that appears in the right hon. Gentleman's document concerns the future of the Community. The right hon. Gentleman has entitled his appeal to the nation as a call for a "new Messina". We all recall that the original Messina conference laid down the essential foundations of the European Community. The right hon. Gentleman's document calls for the destruction of the European Parliament, a destruction of the common agricultural policy and a destruction of a free market in industrial goods. If the right hon. Gentleman is addicted to Italian symbolism, the "new Vesuvius" would be a better description of his vision.
The right hon. Gentleman, in the context of reform of the EC, calls for the House and the country to take account of countries in western Europe that are not within the Community and for the Community to take into account its relationship with the countries of eastern Europe, including those of the Warsaw Pact. He ends by calling for the abolition of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the European Council of Community Heads of Government and the replacement of those institutions by full European councils, all-European assemblies and all-European gatherings.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Nonsense.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is nonsense. It is his document and if he wishes to describe it so, I shall not disagree with him.

Mr. Kinnock: Read it properly.

Mr. Rifkind: I have read it properly. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that he makes no distinction at all in the document between the various parts of Europe. He refers to the need for all European parties — he includes eastern Europe as well as western Europe—to send delegates to institutions he wishes to create. This is an intolerable policy.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will be aware that the House is debating the summit in Brussels. He appears to be labouring under the illusion that the Labour party was a party to that summit. He has now but two and a half minutes left in which to reply to the debate. Will he now address his mind to what case there may be on its merits for increasing own resources, whether a settlement that increases agricultural spending represents effective control of expenditure and where the extra £2,000 million will be found to pay for the outcome of the settlement?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I spent the first half of my speech setting out the Government's unprecedented achievements in obtaining a fair budget solution to Britain's budgetary problems. The Government have already shown their determination to ensure that there will be no increase in own resources unless there is a satisfactory solution to the other matters to which I have referred. If the negotiating strength of Labour Members is to say to our Community partners, "We wish everything from you and we are not prepared to consider giving anything in return," that explains why the previous Labour Government's economic policy was a complete failure and why that Administration would have continued to fail.
I have no doubt that the negotiations that are now being conducted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will lead to a fair settlement for the United Kingdom,

which will enable the Community to develop on a sound and prosperous basis. It is on that assumption and in that belief that, if the Opposition wish to divide the House, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to show their support for Her Majesty's Government.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 253.

Division No. 224]
[11.59 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Foster, Derek


Alton, David
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Ashton, Joe
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Freud, Clement


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, W. E,


Barnett, Guy
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bell, Stuart
Hardy, Peter


Benn, Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bermingham, Gerald
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Blair, Anthony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Boyes, Roland
Heffer, Eric S.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howell, Rt Hon D, (S'heath)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hoyle, Douglas


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
John, Brynmor


Canavan, Dennis
Johnston, Russell


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Thomas
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clay, Robert
Lambie, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lamond, James


Cohen, Harry
Lead bitter, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Leighton, Ronald


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Conlan, Bernard
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Edward


Cowans, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Craigen, J. M.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Crowther, Stan
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cunningham, Dr John
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McTaggart, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max


Dewar, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dormand, Jack
Martin, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Maxton, John


Dubs, Alfred
Maynard, Miss Joan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Meadowcroft, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Michie, William


Ellis, Raymond
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Nellist, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
O'Brien, William


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Parry, Robert


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Patchett, Terry


Forrester, John
Pavitt, Laurie






Penhaligon, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pike, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Straw, Jack


Prescott, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Randall, Stuart
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Redmond, M.
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Tinn, James


Richardson, Ms Jo
Torney, Tom


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wallace, James


Robertson, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Welsh, Michael


Ryman, John
White, James


Sheerman, Barry
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, Gordon


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Winnick, David


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Woodall, Alec


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Snape, Peter
Mr. John Home Robertson.


Spearing, Nigel





NOES


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Cope, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Corrie, John


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Ancram, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount


Arnold, Tom
Critchley, Julian


Ashby, David
Crouch, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dover, Den


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dunn, Robert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Durant, Tony


Baldry, Anthony
Dykes, Hugh


Batiste, Spencer
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Berry, Sir Anthony
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fallon, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Farr, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fletcher, Alexander


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bottomley, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forth, Eric


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fox, Marcus


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gale, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Galley, Roy


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brinton, Tim
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bruinvels, Peter
Gorst, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grant, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Greenway, Harry


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Burt, Alistair
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, W. S.
Hirst, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Conway, Derek
Jackson, Robert





Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Knowles, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lang, Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lester, Jim
Ryder, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lord, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David John
Skeet, T. H. H.


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, John
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Spencer, Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Maples, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Antony
Squire, Robin


Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Mellor, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Merchant, Piers
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stokes, John


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Monro, Sir Hector
Sumberg, David


Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Moore, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Terlezki, Stefan


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mudd, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Murphy, Christopher
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neale, Gerrard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Needham, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Normanton, Tom
Waldegrave, Hon William


Norris, Steven
Walden, George


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Oppenheim, Philip
Wall, Sir Patrick


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Waller, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Ward, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Parris, Matthew
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Watson, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pink, R. Bonner
Wheeler, John


Pollock, Alexander
Whitfield, John


Porter, Barry
Whitney, Raymond


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Powley, John
Wilkinson, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wolfson, Mark


Raffan, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Woodcock, Michael


Rathbone, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ronton, Tim
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rhodes James, Robert



Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tellers for the Noes:


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Question accordingly negatived.

Farming Incomes

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hope that I shall not be accused of tedious repetition if I raise again the question of the EEC review and its effect upon farming incomes. When, five weeks ago, I first entered your ballot, Mr. Speaker, in order to raise on the Adjournment of the House the subject of the decline of farming incomes, I did not know that the impending EEC price review would deal such a blow to the expectations of the coming year's farming incomes in the dairy sector. I wish to speak mainly about that sector, because most of the farmers in my constituency are dairy farmers. I hope that I shall have time to refer to that blow, because this most recent development greatly aggravates the problem of farming incomes.
I chose this subject for debate because for years people in my constituency have been saying — doubtless because they believe it to be so—that all farmers are making money hand over fist, or that farmers are always moaning about their profits, but that every farmer drives a big Mercedes—or perhaps a big Rolls-Royce, though never a Rover or a Granada. People say that they have never seen a poor farmer. Recently they have added that the subsidised farmers do not know what economic recession is, and that all they do it mess up the countryside, pull down the hedges, burn stubble so that smoke blows all over the motorways and moan all the way to the bank.
No doubt there are some farmers who fit that description, but there are many farmers—there are some in my constituency — who are poor. Some of them would have been going out of business even without the price review. I thought that the House might like to hear, or to read in the Official Report, about the declining income of a more or less typical dairy farmer in my constituency. I say typical, but he is one of the better-placed farmers. His farm is comparatively large, with 700 acres. Most of the farmers in Burton and Uttoxeter are much smaller and less well diversified, and therefore in greater difficulty.
Let us call the farmer Mr. Brown, to preserve his anonymity. He is a good farmer—he has been a farmer for over 30 years — and he has never known such worrying financial figures. Last year his profit on an investment of £320,000 was £30,000. This year he expects a total deficit of £56,845, to be financed out of last year's profit.
Let us examine the increase in his costs and then the decrease in farm prices. First, costs. During the past 12 months the cost of dairy cake has increased from £142 a tonne to £167 a tonne. His cows eat 432 tonnes, so the extra cost will be £10,800. However, the cost of barley fed to the cows has decreased by £12 a tonne, so the 200 tonnes that he uses will cost £2,400 less. The overall cost increase of dairy cake will be £8,400. The bought feed for the young stock has increased by £25 a tonne; they eat 120 tonnes a year, so the increased cost is £3,000. This year the cost of fertiliser has increased by £20 a tonne for the 140 tonnes used, which is an increase of £2,800.
Last year Mr. Brown's seven workers accounted for £50,000; assuming a 5 per cent. increase this year, the

increase will be £2,500. There has just been a settlement of a 33 per cent. increase in the farm rent. That was arrived at by the landlord assuming a price increase of 11 per cent. a year during the past three years; at £30 to £40 an acre, the increase is £7,000. It looks as though there may be a 5 per cent. increase in the other overheads of rates, insurance, electricity, telephone, machinery, repairs, etc., which will be an additional cost of £2,000. In all, his costs will increase by £25,700.
How will those increased costs be paid for? Out of increased prices? No, Sir. The likely price figures are as follows. The milk price is expected to average, he believed at the time, 0.5p a litre less than last year; 250 cows give 6,500 litres, which means a reduction of £8,125 in milk returns. Fifty cull cows, which are making £100 less in the market, down to £350, represent a reduction of £5,000. Fifty surplus heifers, which are worth £100 less at £550 a head, mean a reduction of £5,000. The herd produces 150 week-old calves which are sold in the local market, last year at £60 and this year at £30, which means a reduction of £4,500. The farm produces 350 tonnes of barley each year; last year it sold for £108 a tonne, but this year's price is quoted at £96 a tonne. That is another reduction of £4,200. Similarly, 270 tonnes of wheat, which was £114 a tonne, is now quoted at £98 a tonne, which means a further reduction of £4,320. In all, there will be a reduction of £31,145 in the prices that Mr. Brown can expect to receive.
Is that not an appalling reduction in farm incomes? The reducion will be about £56,845 in one year, or £26,845 over two years if one takes into account Mr. Brown's profit. How long can farmers in such circumstances—my local NFU assures me that those figures are pretty general in our area—afford to stay in business? Perhaps in the past such a fanner did well, and perhaps farmers, being proud people, pretend that things are going well and put on a good face. But there is no arguing with such statistics. The image of the over-paid, over-subsidised, profit-ridden farmer is all too often, alas, just a myth.
Will that picture improve with the new Community price agreement? First estimates are extremely worrying. A 0·6 per cent. reduction in money payment for milk, added to a likely increase in costs of 6 per cent., means a reduction in real income of about 7 per cent. This has been estimated as leading to a drop in production of about 10 per cent., with 5,000 British dairy farmers going out of production and the slaughter of 500,000 dairy cows.
What I am not sure has got home to everyone, at present reeling from the blow of a sudden overnight quota restriction as well, after being encouraged especially by subsidies to over-invest and over-produce in the years leading to this one, is that the measures will save only £1,000 million of the £3,000 million overspend that is the problem with the surplus of milk production in the EC. The question is: will the other £2,000 million be cut and, if so, when? Can the milk producer expect further savage cuts next year, or the year after, or the year after that? In the meanwhile, since the EC Commission has had to concede the loss of certain payments it expected before the Irish arrangement, will there have to be a supplementary price review before next year, perhaps after 14 June? If my hon. Friend could give reassuring answers to those questions it would help to prevent the onset of dithering uncertainty that might well sound the death knell to intelligent investment in and planned production of dairy herds.
Even the dairy farmer knows that this settlement was not all bad and that my right hon. Friend put his heart into trying to secure a better deal for the British farmer. We have agreement, which is better than disagreement and uncertainty. From this agreement may come a speedier and more constructive reform of the whole EC budget, for the way is now clear to concentrate on that and that would be to the benefit of every taxpayer, including the farmer.
The food and drink industry, which I also represent in my constituency, seems well pleased with the settlement, if the warm welcome accorded to the deal by the Food Manufacturers Federation is anything to go by. There have been such achievements as retaining the beef premium, albeit at a rate reduced by 20 per cent., the increase of 5p on wool which will help the sheep industry, the doubling of the suckler cow premium and particularly stopping the devaluation of the green pound. These are substantial benefits and my right hon. Friend should be congratulated on them.
Furthermore, because of our small farming community compared with, say, France we were having to pay more towards the CAP budget and more for the import of foodstuffs in which we were not in surplus. So, as The Guardian helpfully pointed out:
Both Mr. Jopling and Mrs. Thatcher deserve congratulation for keeping their eyes first and foremost on Britain's national rather then sectional farming interest.
Nevertheless in the longer run the decline in farming incomes is unlikely to be all that good for the nation.

Mr. David Maclean: I apologise for interrupting my hon. and learned Friend when he has been delivering such a strong case. Will he take it from me that unfortunately the case of Farmer Brown is by no means unique? I too have hundreds of farmers in similar circumstances. Has my hon. and learned Friend seen the table that was published in Hansard last week in response to a question that I put to the Minister, which gives frightening figures for those sectors of agriculture involved in the dairy industry, in cattle and sheep and in pigs and poultry? Has he seen that from a base of 100 in 1977–78 it is forecast that in the current year dairy farmers will be down to an index of 65, cattle and sheep farmers to an index of 64 and pig and poultry farmers to only 25? These are the percentages of what they were earning seven years ago.

Mr. Lawrence: I have indeed seen those figures because my hon. Friend was good enough to show them to me in the Lobby before I came into the debate. They are appalling and should be sent to everybody who has anything to do with the farming industry to alert them to precisely the problems facing farmers.

Mr. Matthew Parris: I have great sympathy for the notional Farmer Brown whom my hon. and learned Friend has described. Will he accept that, great as Farmer Brown's problems may be on 700 acres, he at least can diversify, but that Farmer Green in Monyash or Flagg, 35 miles north of my hon. and learned Friend's constituency, on 70 acres, who depends on dairying and for whom it would be difficult to diversify, is in an even more desperate situation?

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend's devotion to the cause of agriculture in Derbyshire, West is well known and

I have difficulty in keeping ahead of him in my concern for the farmers. To his Farmer Green I could add Fanners Black, White, Brown and practically any other name of farmer in my constituency, who suffers precisely that problem.

Mr. David Lightbown: indicated assent.

Mr. Lawrence: I see my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) nodding in agreement. I know that he, as a leading protagonist of farmers in Staffordshire, also has that sad and unhappy experience.

Mr. Maclean: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, despite those different coloured farmers, it is still not a pretty picture?

Mr. Lawrence: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I hope that the time will not come when he sees any of his farmers having to feed thistles to their flocks.
Farming is one of Britain's biggest employers. It has 625,000 workers, or 2·7 per cent. of the United Kingdom labour force. If farmers go out of business, there will be fewer jobs, not only in farming but in related industries such as farm machinery, fertilisers, food retailing and a thousand different jobs, which account for about 2·2 million of the working population, representing another 10 per cent. of the labour force.
If farmers go out of business they will produce less and we will have to import more, with bad effects on the balance of payments and the price of food. Many people are concerned with ecology but the countryside would suffer without the conservation efforts of farmers. Fanning is one of Britain's most successful industries, not only because it employs so many people but because its record of improving food production and its success towards achieving self-sufficiency are considerable benefits to Britain. While the retail price index rose by 76 per cent. between 1977 and 1982, the price of food produced by our farmers rose by only 57 per cent. , well below the rise in the cost of living, and that is a proud record. Yet producers' prices rose by only 42 per cent., and there lies the problem.
It is very much in the nation's interest that farming stays a successful industry. Can the Minister be more optimistic than Burton's dairy farmers are at present and say that it will continue to be a successful industry?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for raising a subject that is of considerable and understandable concern at present. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) for staying to play a small part or to listen to the debate, and I have noted carefully the points that my hon. and learned Friend and others have made.
It may be helpful if, first, I put matters into a historical perspective. The industry has made great advances in recent decades, as can be seen from the White Papers which summarise the conclusions of the annual reviews during this period, and I shall return to that subject shortly.
Agriculture, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, is a major employer, with about 625,000 people directly engaged in farming and a similar number employed by ancillary industries. Agriculture has an excellent record of improved efficiency, technical innovation, high investment and good industrial relations. In the last 30 years, average cereals yields have increased from just above 2·5 tonnes to over 6 tonnes per hectare. In the same period, the milk yield per cow has risen by about one third.
In the last 10 years we have increased our self-sufficiency in all foods from below 50 per cent. to 60 per cent., and for those foods which it is possible to produce in the United Kingdom the figure has increased by 15 per cent. to 76 per cent. That is a dramatic increase, and I recall telling the House 10 years ago that we imported half the food we ate and that that was very costly. That increase in our ability to produce our own food and that great improvement in our self-sufficiency represent a considerable contribution to the nation's balance of payments. The food share of our nation's total import bill has fallen from 40 per cent. in the 1960s to around 12 per cent. It has been said that, had it been possible for other industrial sectors to mirror that impressive performance, the economic state of our country would be very much better.
It is true, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that farm incomes have generally fallen in real terms during the past decade. That dramatic rise of 37 per cent. in 1982 was due mainly to the exceptional harvest of that year. I recall saying at the Dispatch Box that it might be a dramatic rise, but it still represented a lower income for the farmers than the figure in the 1970s. In 1983 incomes are forecast to stay above the level achieved in 1981, although still remaining in real terms below the levels of the mid-1970s.
Those broad figures inevitably disguise significant variations in the incomes of various sectors of the industry. My hon. Friends will know that the arable sector has generally done much better than livestock, and the intensive livestock sector has fared particularly badly in recent years. They will know that during the price reviews in the past few years, particularly when we were subjected to being outvoted in Europe, we tried to secure a lower return on cereal prices because we feared what it would do to the balance with regard to the livestock sector of agriculture.
My hon. Friends will be thinking particularly of their constituents, but they will know that it is difficult for me to judge between farms. Let us look at the annual review of agriculture for 1984 and at the figure for the notional farm. That is a wider figure than the figures for individual farms. The income for the notional farm in 1981—I said that we would be back at roughly the same figure—was £1,318 million. In 1982, after the dramatic increase due to the good harvest, it went up to £1,802 million. The forecast for 1983 was £1,536 million. Therefore, it is not as good as the year before, because that was an exceptional year—that point was made often in the Chamber. The 1983 figure is marginally above 1981, but in real terms, it is not as high as it was in the mid-1970s.
On the other hand, the price of agricultural land has continued to rise, and there is a strong demand for agricultural tenancies. Investment during 1983 is forecast to show an increase of almost 5 per cent. in volume terms. Those factors are evidence of an underlying faith in the future of the industry by those engaged in it. I accept, however, that although the industry overall is in good

heart, the experiences of certain individual farmers may be rather different. My hon. and learned Friend is making exactly that point.
Agriculture has come under fire from some quarters recently. In essence the argument seems to be that support should be withdrawn and that we should take advantage of the low food prices available on the world markets. But to do so would expose our consumers to fluctuating supplies and price instability while we would have destroyed one of our major industries. Also, if we became significantly more dependent on imports from world markets there is little doubt that prices would rise. In any event this view is quite uncompatible with membership of the EEC.
None the less, there is quite reasonable and justified concern about the cost of agricultural support in the European Community and the burden that this places on the taxpayer. Agriculture has become a victim of its own success. The costs of intervention and disposal for surplus commodities have reached levels far beyond those that can be justified to the taxpayer. We have consistently and constantly emphasised to our Community partners the urgent need to tackle this problem. The cost of the CAP increased by more than 30 per cent. in 1983 to over £9,000 million. Clearly such increases are quite simply unacceptable and cannot be sustained. Unfortunately, until very recently the Community has refused to face up to the elementary fact that we cannot continue to generate additional surpluses of foodstuffs for which there is no market. Happily there is now a much greater awareness of what needs to be done but delays in facing up to the problem mean that the corresponding adjustments will be all the harder.
It is plain both that some adjustments will have to be made to the CAP and that United Kingdom agriculture cannot be exempted from them. Some very important decisions have just been taken. My hon. and learned Friend is concerned. He says that now, at least, there is some certainty, but he is clearly concerned for his dairy farmers. This I understand.
The recent agreement on a milk super levy is expected to cut back Community production by several million tonnes per annum. On the Commission's own figures, it costs some £160 million to dispose of each extra one million tonnes of production, since there is absolutely no market for it in the Community. Of course, the process of adjustment will regrettably prove painful for some of our own dairy farmers, but I am sure the industry has the resilience necessary to adapt successfully to the new circumstances. Hard decisions have also been taken for other commodities. For example, the common prices for most cereals have been cut by 1 per cent. , which represents a significant price decrease in real terms. Perhaps I should add that my officials in the agricultural development and advisory service are, of course, always willing to give farmers impartial advice on the ways in which the profitability of their holding might be sustained or improved. They are giving such good advice. The first thing that I would suggest that Mr. Brown and Mr. Green could perhaps do, in the way of assistance for themselves, is to ensure that they get that advice from our ADAS officers.
My hon. and learned Friend was worried about what he still regards as an uncertain future. As for milk, it has been stated that the reduction in Europe will be down to the global figure of about 99 million tonnes this year and down


to 97·2 million tonnes next year. So, at least for the next two years, there is some certainty in the level of what I know, and what I have admitted, to be some hardship for the dairy industry. My hon. and learned Friend was kind enough to refer to some of the achievements that my right hon. Friend the Minister has secured in the price review, so I shall not reiterate them.

Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend, who has given an interesting account of the current position, moves on, would she be good enough to comment on the second problem worrying my dairy farmers? They are concerned that there might be a supplementary review this year to make up for the shortfall on the money available to the Community as a result of having to pay out more in the review than it had budgeted for.

Mrs. Fenner: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I see no evidence of that. There has been an extra imposition of 1 per cent. on the co-responsibility levy, which is intended to pay for reducing the milk output to 97·2 million tonnes over two years instead of doing it in one year. There is no sign of discussions on a supplementary levy.
This Government will, within the framework of the CAP, continue to foster the viability of British agriculture. I am confident that the industry will respond to the challenge of the difficult times that lie ahead and I remain optimistic about the long-term future for British agriculture. I hope that my remarks have at least allayed the worst fears of my hon. and learned Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to One o'clock.